SATYA DEVI Vs. KANTA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Smt. Satya Devi, hereinafter described as "the petitioner", directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, dated 7.5.1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff and directed the petitioner to file reply to the interrogatories.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for declaration claiming l/4th share from the properties in dispute. It was asserted that the said share is on the basis of inheritance. The said suit was contested by others including the petitioner. Plea had been raised that Maya Devi had left a Will dated 6.11.1990 in favour of the husband of the petitioner and respondents No. 9 and 10 and that .the Wills dated 11.10.1990 and 12.10.1990 were cancelled. Issues were framed and the parties led evidence. The case was filed for evidence in rebuttal. At that stage, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order XI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") for delivering interrogatories to be answered by the petitioner. It was asserted that in order to save the time of the Court and delay, permission should be granted to deliver the interrogatories to the defendant-petitioner. The said application was contested and the learned trial Court had passed the following order :

(3.) The purpose of Order XI, Rule 1 of the Code is that a party is entitled'to know the nature of the opponent's case. He must know beforehand as to what he is to meet at the hearing. Sometimes the plaint and the written statement do not sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties, case. Therefore, the interrogatories are permitted to be served to elucidate the facts and to know the exact nature of the litigation from an unscrupulous party. The said purpose has been considered by the Supreme Court. In the decision rendered in the case of Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, it was held that the questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. They must be closely connected with the matter in question. In paragraph 27 of the judgment, the Supreme Court concluded as under: