ORDER XI OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908: INTERROGATORIES-

FORM, LIMITATION AND PURPOSE
1.     Form of serving interrogatories:

That according to Order XI, Rule 2 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as the CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act,
2015, interrogatories are to be served in the form provided in Form No. 2 in
Appendix C of the CPC, with such variations as circumstances may require.

2.     Form of answering interrogatories:

That according to Order XI, Rule 2 (9) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015, an affidavit in answer to interrogatories has to be in the form
provided in Form No. 3 in Appendix C of the CPC, with such variations as
circumstances may require.

3.     Limitations on the right of a party to deliver interrogatories:

It is incumbent to note that Order XI, Rule 1 of the CPC is similar to Order XI, Rule 2
(1) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

a.     In the matter of: Raj Narain V/s Smt. Indira Gandhi, 1972 SCR (3) 841,
explaining the scope of Order XI, Rule 1 of the CPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India observed that:

“… Questions that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily

relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories
are those relating to “any matters in question”. The interrogatories served must
have reasonably close connection with “matters in question”. Viewed thus,
interrogatories 1 to 18 as well as 31 must be held to be irrelevant.”

b.     In the matter of: Nishi Prem V/s Javed Akhtar, AIR 1988 Bom 22, it was
held that:

“… This rule is enacted to enable the parties to know the nature of the opponent’s
case, but the rule does not entitle the party to ascertain the facts which constitute
exclusively the evidence of the other side, the reason being that it would enable
unscrupulous parties to tamper with the witnesses of the other side and to
manufacture evidence in contradiction and so shape his case as to defeat justice. In
cases where the plaint or written statement does not necessarily disclose the nature

Interna
l to
Wipro
 of the case, then interrogatories are administered to make good the deficiency.
Interrogatories can also be administered to obtain admissions from other parties to
facilitate the proof of the claim. …”

c.     In the matter of: Smt. Sharda Dhir V/s Sh. Ashok Kumar Makhija, 99

(2002) DLT 350, it was observed that:

i.               Interrogatories cannot be used as a means of obtaining information which

may be admissible during the oral cross-examination of a party and his witnesses.

ii.             Interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question involved in

the suit, indeed, would be deemed irrelevant even though they might be admissible
in oral cross-examination of the witnesses.

iii.            Leave to deliver interrogatories does not imply an order to answer them

and any objection to answer them can be taken if the interrogatories served are:
scandalous, or irrelevant, or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the
suit, or with the matter inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage or on
the ground of privilege.

iv.            That the court is duty-bound to decide not only whether a party should be
allowed to interrogate the other side, but also as to what questions should the
opposite side be compelled to answer.

v.              In Para 10 of the report, it was observed that:

“… As observed above at the preliminary stage of hearing on the application the

court is required to decide whether the applicant should be allowed to interrogate
the other side, but is not to determine what question should the opposite party be
compelled to answer. Interrogatories may then be served on the other party for his
answer to that on affidavit. The party, who has been served with interrogatories,
will then answer the interrogatories on affidavit or raise objections about the
relevancy or they being of scandalous nature, irrelevant, not bona fide, or not to be
answered on the ground of privilege etc., in answer. The court then may consider
and dispose of the interrogatories. It will not for the court at this stage of granting
leave to consider what particular questions the party interrogated should be
compelled to answer. Proper time for considering that question is after the party
interrogated has filed its affidavit in answer.”

Thus, the upshot of the above referred Para is that, once interrogatories are served
by one party upon the other and notice on the aforesaid application  has been issued
by the court, then it is upon the opposite party to give reply to the aforesaid
application stating as to how the serving of interrogatories upon it is impermissible
in law; however, if the court rejects the objections filed by the opposite party, then it

Interna
l to
Wipro
 will be incumbent upon the opposite party to give appropriate reply-affidavit to the
interrogatories served upon it.

d.     In the matter of: Essel Sports (P) Ltd. V/s Union of India & Ors, 2013 SCC
Online Del 3261, it was observed that:

“… 17. A bare perusal of Rule 1 of Order XI itself shows that there are certain
limitations on the right of a party to deliver interrogatories. Firstly, no party shall
deliver more than one set of interrogatories, without an order from the Court for
that purpose. This clearly shows that a party is not permitted to engage in a roving
inquiry by serving interrogatories on the opposite party. The mechanism of service
of interrogatories is also not to be resorted to as a substitute for cross-examination.
The second proviso in the said Rule states that the interrogatories, which do not
relate to any matters to the question in the suit, shall be deemed irrelevant,
notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a
witness. Consequently, the scope of the interrogatories is much narrower, when
compared to the scope and width of the questions which could be posed during
cross-examination of a witness.”

4.     Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018: Chapter VIII (Discovery,
Inspection & Interrogatories):

i.               As per Chapter VIII, Rule 1 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules,
2018, plaintiff is to serve interrogatories upon the defendant within 15 days of
receipt of written statement from the defendant.

ii.             As per Chapter VIII, Rule 2 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules,
2018, defendant shall be entitled to serve interrogatories upon the plaintiff within 15
days of receipt of replication from the plaintiff.

5.     Purpose of serving interrogatories:

i.               Interrogatories may be delivered for examination of opposite party. It is

not necessary that by way of interrogatories itself the suit must be decided. The
issues can be framed on the basis of answers to the interrogatories submitted by the
other side. (Poonam Mansharamani V/s Ajit Mansharamani, 2016 (1) MPLJ
366)

ii.             Interrogatories often shorten the litigation and save expenses.

However, the trial court is required to examine whether the interrogatories served
have any reasonably close connection with “matter in question”. 

iii.            In the matter of: Canara Bank V/s Rajiv Tyagi, (2010) 166 DLT 523, it
was held that:

Interna
l to
Wipro
 “… Merely because the interrogatories could form the question which could be put
in cross examination is no basis for denying the interrogatories. Certainly,
whatever can form the subject matter of interrogatories can form the subject
matter of cross examination. But notwithstanding the same a provision therefor
has been made in the CPC. The interrogatories are aimed at facilitating proof of the
case and to save the costs which may be necessary in view of the replies to the
interrogatories. Thus, the test to be applied in dealing with an application for
discovery by interrogatories is not whether it can form subject matter of cross
examination or not but is of relevancy and expediency.”

iv.            One of the core objects of interrogatories is to save evidence, diminish the

burden of proof and to save expenses. (A.K. Aggarwal V/s Shunti Devi, 1996
RLR 60)

v.              In the matter of Smt. Sharda Dhir (Supra), it was observed that:

a.     The object of serving of interrogatories is that a party to the lis knows the

nature of his opponent’s case before hand in order to meet it at the hearing.

b.     That in a given case, the pleadings of the parties to the lis may not sufficiently
disclose the nature of the case set up by the parties to the lis and thus, in order to
make good the deficiencies, the serving of interrogatories by the parties inter se is
useful.

c.     The only defence to service of interrogatories can be when the same do not
relate to the matters in question or are scandalous. Interrogatories served must
have a reasonably close connection with the matters in question.

Interna
l to
Wipro