Goa Shipyard Limited... v. Suresh Chandra Sharma .

M.S. Sonak, J.:— Heard Mr S.D. Padiyar, who appears along with Mr P. Shirodkar for the petitioner and Mr E.O. Mendes for the respondent.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 15.12.2021 made by the Trial Court purporting to grant leave to the respondent (plaintiff) to seek discovery by interrogatories and disclosure of documents.

4. Order XI Rule 1 of CPC reads as follows:

“1. Discovery by interrogatories - In any suit, the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer:

Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose:

Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness.”

5. From the above, it is clear that the parties have to seek leave of the Court to deliver interrogatories for the examination of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the respondent (plaintiff), by his application, which has now been disposed of by the impugned order, applied for such leave.

6. After leave is granted, the opposite parties, in terms of Order XI Rule 6 of CPC, can file their objections to the interrogatories. Such objections are to be raised by filing an affidavit. In the affidavit, the opposite parties can object to either of the interrogatories or some of the interrogatories.

7. After objections are filed by the opposite parties in terms of Order XI Rule 6 of CPC, the Court has to decide on such objections having regard to the provisions of Order XI Rule 7 of CPC.

8. Order XI Rule 6 and Rule 7 of CPC are transcribed below for the convenience of reference:

“6. Objections to interrogatories by answer - Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage, 11 [or on the ground of privilege or any other ground], may be taken in the affidavit in answer.

7. Setting aside and striking out interrogatories - 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 or scandalous; and any application for this purpose may be made within seven days after service of the in terroga tories.”

9. The Trial Court, in this case, has not followed the procedure as envisaged by the above provisions of the CPC. In any case, the order of the Trial Court may be taken as an order merely granting the respondent (plaintiff) leave to seek discovery by interrogatories and nothing further. As it is, the Trial Court has also referred to the interrogatories as “rough interrogatories”. The Trial Court has also observed that the draft interrogatories are in consonance with the pleadings of the plaint as well and directly relate to the issues framed in the present suit. This was not the stage at which the Trial Court should have made these observations.

10. Be that as it may, the petitioner is now granted liberty to file an affidavit in terms of Order XI Rule 6 of CPC within fifteen days from today without seeking any adjournments.

11. The petitioner's objections to each of the interrogatories must be decided afresh by the learned Trial Court in terms of Order XI Rule 7 of CPC. Such objections must be decided within six weeks from the petitioner filing the affidavit in terms of Order XI Rule 6 of CPC. Such objections must be decided without being influenced by any of the observations in the impugned order dated 15.12.2021, which is now being modified. The impugned order must be taken as an order merely granting leave to seek discovery by interrogatories and nothing further.

12. By modifying the impugned order and by granting the petitioner liberty to file an affidavit in terms of Order XI Rule 6 within fifteen days from today and further directing the Trial Court to dispose of such objections within six weeks from the petitioner filing such affidavit, this petition is disposed of.

13. Further, the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 on Exhibit D-39 made under Order XI Rule 12 is set aside with liberty to the respondent (plaintiff) to file an appropriate application under the Evidence Act to summon the documents which formed the subject matter of the application at Exhibit D-39. Such application, if filed to be decided by the Trial Court on its own merits and in accordance with the law within two months of its filing.

14. The rule is disposed of in this petition in the above terms. There shall be no order for costs.

15. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

16. Considering the issues involved in the main suit, this Court feels that the parties must try to resolve their disputes through mediation. Accordingly, the petitioner and the respondent must seriously consider attempting to resolve their disputes through mediation. The Trial Court is to consider referring this matter to mediation after obtaining consent from both parties.