THAKUR PRASAD Vs. MD SOHAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by a defendant is directed against an order of the learned Additional Munsif, refusing to serve interrogatories upon a defendant, namely, defendant No. 4, who had not entered appearance in the suit at all. The ground assigned by the learned Additional Munsif, however, is that, that would unnecessarily delay the disposal of the title suit which is of the year 1967.

(2.) That may be one of the grounds, but in my opinion there is yet another and stronger ground to maintain the order. The right of making discovery and inspection is given under Order XI of the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and time by enabling a party to obtain from his opponent information as to facts material to the questions in dispute between them and to obtain admissions of any fact* which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between them. An admission of the adversary will serve to maintain the case of the party administering the interrogatory or the answer might be destructive of his own case. A party therefore who has not chosen to appear in the case and contest the plaintiff's suit cannot be asked either to discover any document or to answer any question on interrogatories. This view also seems to be in keeping with the penal clause provided under Rule 21 of Order XI which provides that where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, this penalty cannot be visited to a defendant who has not chosen to appear to contest a suit. Although there does not appear to be any decision of any High Court of India, to me on consideration of the entire scheme of the Order, it appears that interrogatories as a general rule should not be served until after the defence is filed as until then, it is not possible to fix the area of the controversy ' between the parties and the very purpose of this provision cannot be fulfilled.

(3.) I would, accordingly, dismiss this application, but as there is no appearance on behalf of the other side, shall make no order as to costs.