@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Narayana Kurup, J.@mdashDefendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 1170/95 of the II Addl. Sub Judge''s Court, Trivandrum are the revision petitioners. The revision is directed against the order of the trial court in I.A. No. 2619/97 dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners for setting aside and striking out the interrogatories. The revision petitioners and respondents 1 to 5 herein are the legatees under a Will executed by the late His Highness Maharaja of Travancore on 28.11.1981. His Highness passed away on 20.7.1991. Thereafter, the Will was probated. Under the Will, the legatees are entitled to large extent of properties including the Kowdiar Palace, Trivandrum measuring 38 acres. An agreement for sale was executed by defendants 1 to 9 and the plaintiffs on 4.7.1993 for sale of 28 acres of land, viz. the Palace Extension Compound at the rate of Rs. 49,500/- per cent. Thereafter on 15.4.1994 a supplemental agreement is alleged to have been executed between the parties. However, this is denied by the plaintiffs. As per the condition of agreement, the sale deed has to be executed on or before 25.10.1994. However, in the meantime, the Govt. of Kerala issued a notification dated 13.12.1993 prohibiting sale or agreement for sale of land within the palace compound. The plaintiffs were accordingly informed of the prohibition. The case set up by the defendants is that by virtue of the aforesaid notification, the agreement for sale has became incapable of being performed and the plaintiffs can take back the advance of Rs. 50 lakhs. The plaintiffs did not relent and instead they filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement for sale. The defendants filed written statement denying the plaint averments and based on the pleadings, issues were settled. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs filed 33 Nos. of interrogatories and sought leave of the court to serve the same on the defendants. The trial court as per order in I.A. 7441796 granted leave for delivery of interrogatories in respect of question Nos. 1 to 5, 7 to 14, 16 to 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30 and 32 and in respect of others it was declined. The revision petitioners herein thereupon filed an application under Order XI Rule 7 C.P.C. (I.A. 2619/97) praying for setting aside/striking out the interrogatories. It was argued before the trial court that the interrogatories have been exhibited unreasonably, vexatiously and that they are oppressive, unnecessary and scandalous. The trial court after hearing the matter however dismissed the same and this revision is directed against the aforesaid order of dismissal as already noticed.
2. According to learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the interrogatories sought to be delivered are lacking in bonafides. He would contend that they are vexatious, scandalous, irregular and oppressive. The further case set up is that most of the interrogatories directed to be delivered are irrelevant and bearing no nexus to the contentions raised in the suit. However, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents would contend that there is absolutely no basis either in law or on facts to set aside any of the interrogatories allowed to be delivered as per order dated 9.4.1997 in I.A. 7441/96 and the interrogatories directed to be delivered have a reasonable connection with the matters arising for consideration in the suit. In other words, the contention is that the interrogatories are relevant to the facts in issue. On a consideration of the rival contentions, I am satisfied that the order under challenge does not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional power conferred on this court u/s 115 C.P.C. On a perusal of the order dated 9.4.1997 produced by the plaintiffs along with the counter affidavit as Ext.R7(a), it can be seen that the trial court has adverted to the question of relevancy of the interrogatories sought to be delivered in meticulous detail and came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no material placed before it to show that the questions which are treated as relevant is in any way scandalous, oppressive or prolix. All the interrogatories are considered in seriatim and a finding recorded in respect of each interrogatory. In sharp contrast, apart from the ipse-dixit of the revision petitioners there is no material on record to substantiate their contention that the interrogatories have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously and that they are oppressive, unnecessary and scandalous. It is not stated how they are oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous and how the interrogatories are unreasonable and vexatious. When a party to the suit is granted leave to deliver interrogatories, the person interrogated is entitled to act under Rules 6 and 7 of Order XI C.P.C. The provisions contained in Rule 6 demonstrate that any objection to answer any interrogatories on the ground mentioned therein may be taken in the affidavit in answer. The provision contained in Rule 7 shows that any interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously or struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary and an application for the said purpose may be made by the person interrogated. This shows that the provisions contained in Rules 6 and 7 of Order XI C.P.C. must be read together. It is the case of defendants 1 to 5 that the interrogatories permitted to be delivered are irrelevant and they are not exhibited bonafide and also they are oppressive, scandalous and prolix. When grant of leave to one party to deliver interrogatories is made by the court, the party interrogated is entitled to raise objections under Order XI Rule 6 C.P.C. The objection must be taken separately in answer to each interrogatory, as is evident from the provisions contained in Rule 6 Order XI C.P.C. But the revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 have not objected to answer the interrogatories separately - in answer to each interrogatory - in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. Nor have they filed any separate affidavit stating their objection to answering the interrogatories separately in answer to each interrogatory. All that has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. 2619/97 is that the interrogatories have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously and that they are oppressive, unnecessary and scandalous. As already noted, it is not stated as to how the interrogatories are oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous and how they are unreasonable and vexatious. Having regard to the fact that the revision petitioners have not raised their objections to answer the interrogatories as provided under Rule 6 of Order XI C.P.C. and objections to answering the interrogatories have not been taken separately in answer to each interrogatory, I am satisfied that the interrogatories directed to be delivered to the revision petitioners is not liable to be set aside or struck off on the ground that they are exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously or they are prolix, oppressive and scandalous. In the aforesaid view, the trial court was right in dismissing the I.A. for setting aside and striking out the interrogatories allowed to be delivered to the revision petitioners as per order in I.A. 7441/96.
3. That apart, it has to be noted that interrogatories have very often a more useful function in an action than is always appreciated. Though interrogatories are to be kept strictly within the legitimate limits within which they are permissible, the administering of interrogatories is definitely a step which is more often desirable than undesirable and to be encouraged rather than to be discouraged because they frequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage then otherwise would be the case, to the advantage of all parties concerned thereby shortening the life-span of a litigation - vide Duke of Sutherland v. British Dominions Land Settlement Corporation Ltd. (1926) I Ch. 746 at page 753. Adverting to the equitable doctrine of discovery Sir J. Wigram in his treatise on ''Discovery'' 2nd Edition, page 15 observed as follows:- "It is the right, as a general rule, of a plaintiff in equity to exact from the defendant a discovery upon oath as to all matters of facts which, being well pleaded in the bill, are material to the plaintiff''s case about to come on for trial, and which the defendant does not by his form of pleading admit." As to the guidelines for the exercise of discretion by the court in the matter of delivery of interrogatories, the learned author proceeds to state as follows at page 165 of the same treatise: "In determining whether particular discovery is material or not, the court will exercise a discretion in refusing to enforce it, where it is remote in its bearings upon the real point in issue and would be an oppressive inquisition." Cotton L.J. has gone to the extent of stating that to say that the pleadings have raised the issues and that therefore the interrogatories should not be allowed is an entire fallacy. According to him discovery is not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge of that which he does not already know, but includes the getting an admission of anything which he had to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the defendant. - See (1881-82) 20 Ch. D.519 at page 528 (Attorney General v. Gaskill). However, the aforesaid observation is subject to the limitation that interrogatories may not be delivered as a matter of course to every single allegation in the statement of claim without regard to the question whether it is reasonable or not that discovery should be asked for as to those facts. The Apex Court had occasion to consider the import of Order 11 Rule 12 C.P.C. dealing with an application for discovery of documents in
Generally speaking, a party is entitled to inspection of all documents which do not themselves constitute exclusively the other party''s evidence of his case or title. If a party wants inspection of documents in the possession of the opposite party, he cannot inspect them unless the other party produces them. The party wanting inspection must, therefore, call upon the opposite party to produce the document. And how can a party to this unless he knows that documents are in the possession or power of the opposite party? In other words, unless the party seeking discovery knows what are the documents in the possession or custody of the opposite party which would throw light upon the question in controversy, how is it possible for him to ask for discovery of specific documents?
After discussing the legal connotation of the relevant provisions of the C.P.C. in this context, His Lordship proceeded to discuss the consequences of a party failing to take objection to the interrogatories in the following words:
When the court makes an order for discovery under the rule, the opposite party is bound to make an affidavit of documents and if he fails to do so, he will be subjected to the penalties specified in Rule 21 of Order 11. An affidavit of documents shall set forth all the documents which are or have been in his possession or power relating to the matter in question in the proceedings. And as to the documents which are not but have been in his possession or power, he must state what has become of them and in whose possession they are, in order that the opposite party may be enabled to get production from the persons who have possession of them. After he has disclosed the documents by the affidavit, he may be required to produce for inspection such of the documents as he is in possession of and as are relevant.
To recapitulate the defendants have not stated as to how the interrogatories are oppressive, unnecessary, scandalous, prolix or vexations. They have not taken separate objection in answer to each interrogatory as enjoined by the provisions contained in Rule 6 of Order II C.P.C. Nor have they filed separate affidavit stating their objection to each interrogatory. No doubt, it has been stated by them in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. 2619/97 that the interrogatories have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously and that they are oppressive, unnecessary and scandalous. But it is not stated how they are oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous and how the interrogatories are unreasonable and vexatious. In view of the aforesaid fact that defendants 1 to 5 have not raised their objection to answering the interrogatories as provided under Order 11 Rule 6 C.P.C. and that the objections to answering the interrogatories have not been taken separately in answer to each interrogatories, the trial court was right in dismissing the application to set aside or strike out the interrogatories on the ground that they are exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously or they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under challenge. At any rate, this is not a fit case for revision. The Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed however with no order as to costs.
