See : K.C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K.C. Vasanthakumari
Introduction
Interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), allow a party to a suit to obtain information from their opponent through written questions to support their case, streamline trial proceedings, or reduce litigation costs. The case of O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019 (2025: KER: 33579), decided by the High Court of Kerala, provides significant judicial guidance on the scope, application, and limitations of interrogatories. This law note examines the principles governing interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 CPC, as elucidated in this case, with reference to relevant precedents.
Legal Framework
Order XI Rule 1 CPC permits any party to a suit, with the court’s leave, to deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite party, provided they relate to “matters in question” in the suit. The objective is to enable a party to gather information to maintain their case, shorten trial proceedings, and save costs by reducing the need for summoning witnesses or documents. The court’s discretion in granting leave is exercised cautiously to prevent abuse, such as fishing expeditions or roving inquiries.
Key Principles from O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019
In O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019, the High Court of Kerala upheld the Trial Court’s order allowing the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories to defendant No. 1 in a property dispute involving the Kuttipurath Chelath Tharawad. The plaintiff sought to question defendant No. 1’s title and actions concerning a disputed gift deed. The court’s judgment clarified several aspects of interrogatories:
- Purpose and Scope of Interrogatories
- Objective: Interrogatories are intended to obtain information from the opponent to support the applicant’s case, either directly through admissions or indirectly by challenging the opponent’s case (Para 10). They aim to streamline trials and save costs (Para 10).
- Scope in India: Interrogatories must be confined to facts relevant to the matters in question in the suit (Para 13). Unlike in England, where they can ascertain the “nature” of the opponent’s case, in India, they are limited to supporting the applicant’s case and cannot be used to discover the opponent’s exclusive evidence (Para 10, 15).
- Liberal yet Cautious Application: The power to allow interrogatories should be exercised liberally to serve justice but with caution to prevent abuse, such as fishing expeditions or roving inquiries (Para 10, 14).
- Relevance and Nexus
- Interrogatories must have a “reasonably close connection” with the matters in question in the suit, as established in Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi [(1972) 3 SCC 850] (Para 16).
- In this case, the interrogatories sought details about defendant No. 1’s title, possession, and actions regarding properties allocated in a prior decree. The court found these relevant, as they directly related to the plaintiff’s claim of a share in the properties and allegations of a fraudulent gift deed (Para 23, 25).
- The court rejected the contention that the interrogatories were a fishing expedition, emphasizing that they were not aimed at discovering exclusive evidence of the defendant’s case (Para 22, 25).
- Limitations on Interrogatories
- Interrogatories are not permissible for:
- Discovering facts constituting exclusively the opponent’s evidence or title (Benbow v. Low [(1880) 16 CD 93]) (Para 15).
- Confidential communications between a party and their legal advisors (State Bank of India v. J.K. Sohan Singh [1962 SCC OnLine Punj 318]) (Para 15).
- Disclosures injurious to public interest (Para 15).
- Questions relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories (Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi) (Para 16).
- Interrogatories cannot be used to test the credibility of a party, unlike cross-examination (Bhavans Vidya Mandir v. Shibu K.P. [2017 (1) KHC 498]) (Para 18).
- Interrogatories are not permissible for:
- Timing of Application
- Applications for interrogatories should ideally be moved before the trial begins (K.L. Constantine v. Bruss Foods B.V. [2012 SCC OnLine Ker 31599]) (Para 12). However, in this case, the court held that even at an advanced stage of trial, interrogatories could be allowed if they cause no prejudice to the answering party (Para 24).
- The “test of prejudice” is critical in determining whether interrogatories are permissible at a later stage (Para 24). In this case, defendant No. 1 could not demonstrate prejudice, justifying the Trial Court’s order (Para 24).
- Effect of Prior Dismissal
- The dismissal of an earlier application for interrogatories (I.A No. 255/2017) as “not pressed” did not bar a subsequent application (I.A No. 843/2019) if based on a changed cause of action (Para 27).
- The court distinguished Mohammed Master v. Abu Haji (1981 KLT 578), where dismissal as not pressed was treated as a consent to decide against the applicant. Here, the subsequent application was filed after the plaintiff reported the unavailability of final decree records, constituting a new cause of action (Para 27).
- Judicial Discretion and Fair Disposal
- The court must assess whether interrogatories are necessary for the fair disposal of the suit or for saving costs (Sreejith Varma v. Poonjar Koyikkal Royal Family Trust [2020 (4) KHC 363]) (Para 19).
- The court must consider the pleadings, defenses, and the nature of the interrogatories to ensure relevance (Para 19). In this case, the unavailability of final decree records justified interrogatories to clarify defendant No. 1’s title (Para 23).
Application in the Case
The plaintiff sought interrogatories to question defendant No. 1 about his role in prior decree proceedings, possession of allocated properties, and the basis of the gift deed (Para 20). The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order, finding:
- The interrogatories were relevant to the plaintiff’s claim of a share in the properties and allegations of fraud (Para 25).
- They did not seek exclusive evidence of the defendant’s case or constitute a roving inquiry (Para 22).
- No prejudice was caused to defendant No. 1, despite the advanced stage of the trial (Para 24).
- The subsequent application was maintainable due to changed circumstances (unavailability of decree records) (Para 27).
Precedents Cited
The court relied on the following precedents to shape its reasoning:
- Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi [(1972) 3 SCC 850]: Emphasized the need for interrogatories to have a close connection to matters in question (Para 16).
- P. Balan v. Central Bank of India, Calicut (1999 SCC OnLine Ker 184): Advocated a liberal yet cautious approach to interrogatories (Para 14).
- Bhavans Vidya Mandir v. Shibu K.P. [2017 (1) KHC 498]: Clarified that interrogatories are limited to matters in question, not extending to cross-examination scope (Para 18).
- Sreejith Varma v. Poonjar Koyikkal Royal Family Trust [2020 (4) KHC 363]: Stressed the necessity of interrogatories for fair disposal or cost-saving (Para 19).
- Mohammed Master v. Abu Haji (1981 KLT 578): Distinguished on the issue of prior dismissal (Para 26).
Conclusion
The decision in O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019 underscores that interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 CPC are a vital tool for eliciting relevant information to support a party’s case, provided they are confined to matters in question and do not constitute fishing expeditions. Courts must exercise discretion liberally but cautiously, ensuring no prejudice to the answering party. The case clarifies that subsequent applications are permissible on changed circumstances, and the “test of prejudice” governs applications at advanced trial stages. This ruling reinforces the balance between procedural efficiency and fairness in civil litigation.
Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) on Interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 CPC
- What is the primary purpose of interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 CPC as per O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019?
a) To challenge the credibility of the opponent
b) To obtain information to support the applicant’s case
c) To discover the opponent’s exclusive evidence
d) To replace cross-examination of witnesses
Answer: b) To obtain information to support the applicant’s case
Explanation: The court emphasized that interrogatories are meant to enable a party to gather information from their opponent to maintain their own case, streamline trial proceedings, or save costs (Para 10). - In O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019, why did the High Court allow interrogatories despite the trial being at an advanced stage?
a) The trial was not yet concluded
b) No prejudice was caused to the defendant
c) The plaintiff had not filed any prior application
d) The interrogatories were irrelevant to the suit
Answer: b) No prejudice was caused to the defendant
Explanation: The court applied the “test of prejudice” and found that allowing interrogatories at an advanced stage caused no prejudice to defendant No. 1 (Para 24). - What restriction applies to interrogatories in India, as clarified in the case?
a) They can ascertain the nature of the opponent’s case
b) They must be confined to matters in question in the suit
c) They can replace oral cross-examination
d) They can seek confidential communications with legal advisors
Answer: b) They must be confined to matters in question in the suit
Explanation: Unlike in England, interrogatories in India are limited to facts relevant to the matters in question and cannot be used to discover the opponent’s case or title (Para 13, 15). - What was the court’s ruling on the dismissal of the plaintiff’s earlier application (I.A No. 255/2017) in O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019?
a) It barred the plaintiff from filing a subsequent application
b) It was treated as a consent to decide against the plaintiff
c) It did not bar a subsequent application on a changed cause of action
d) It required the plaintiff to withdraw the suit
Answer: c) It did not bar a subsequent application on a changed cause of action
Explanation: The court held that the dismissal of the earlier application as “not pressed” did not preclude a subsequent application (I.A No. 843/2019) based on new circumstances, such as the unavailability of decree records (Para 27). - According to O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019, which of the following is NOT a valid ground for disallowing interrogatories?
a) Seeking confidential communications between a party and their legal advisor
b) Seeking information relevant to matters in question
c) Seeking disclosures injurious to public interest
d) Seeking exclusive evidence of the opponent’s case
Answer: b) Seeking information relevant to matters in question
Explanation: Interrogatories are permissible if they relate to matters in question, but they are disallowed for seeking confidential communications, public interest disclosures, or exclusive evidence of the opponent’s case (Para 15).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 CPC
- What are interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 CPC?
Interrogatories are written questions served by one party to a suit on the opposing party, with the court’s leave, to obtain information relevant to the matters in question. Their purpose is to support the applicant’s case, streamline trial proceedings, and save costs by reducing the need for witnesses or documents (Para 10). - What is the scope of interrogatories in India compared to England, as per O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019?
In India, interrogatories must be confined to facts relevant to the matters in question in the suit and are used to support the applicant’s case. Unlike in England, they cannot be used to ascertain the nature of the opponent’s case or to discover their exclusive evidence (Para 12, 13). - Can interrogatories be allowed at an advanced stage of trial?
Yes, interrogatories can be allowed at an advanced stage if they cause no prejudice to the answering party. In O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019, the court applied the “test of prejudice” to permit interrogatories despite the trial’s advanced stage, as no prejudice was shown to defendant No. 1 (Para 24). - Does the dismissal of an earlier application for interrogatories bar a subsequent one?
No, a subsequent application is permissible if based on a changed cause of action. In this case, the plaintiff’s earlier application (I.A No. 255/2017) was dismissed as not pressed, but a later application (I.A No. 843/2019) was allowed due to new circumstances, such as the unavailability of final decree records (Para 27). - What types of questions are not permitted in interrogatories?
Interrogatories cannot be used for:- Discovering facts that constitute exclusively the opponent’s evidence or title (Para 15).
- Seeking confidential communications between a party and their legal advisor (Para 15).
- Seeking disclosures injurious to public interest (Para 15).
- Conducting fishing expeditions or roving inquiries (Para 13).
- How does a court decide whether to allow interrogatories?
The court assesses whether the interrogatories are necessary for the fair disposal of the suit or for saving costs, considering the pleadings, defenses, and the nature of the questions. The interrogatories must have a close connection to the matters in question and not be abusive (Para 19, 22). - Can interrogatories replace cross-examination?
No, interrogatories are distinct from cross-examination. Questions relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories, which must strictly relate to matters in question in the suit (Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, Para 16; Bhavans Vidya Mandir v. Shibu K.P., Para 18).