The Kerala High Court has held that the merit of the petition seeking leave to deliver interrogatories is to be decided on the touchstone of 'prejudice' even in the advanced stage of trial. The High Court also ruled that the plaintiff is not barred from making a second application seeking leave to deliver interrogatories on a subsequent cause of action.

The second defendant approached the High Court challenging the order of the Trial Court granting leave to the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories in the Original Petition.

The Single Bench of Justice K. Babu said, “I am of the view that the merit of the petition seeking leave to deliver interrogatories is to be decided on the touchstone of 'prejudice' even in the advanced stage of trial. The ultimate test shall be the 'test of prejudice'. In the present case, defendant No.1 has no case that any prejudice would be caused to him by way of answering the questions delivered.”

Advocate R. Rajesh Kormath represented the Petitioner while Advocate Meena A represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The plaintiff and the defendants are members of the Kuttipurath Chelath Tharawad. The Plaint Schedule Properties, along with some other properties, originally belonged to the Tharawad. Some of the members of the Tharawad filed a suit seeking partition of the Tharawad properties. The Court decreed the suit, and the properties were partitioned. The plaintiff was a minor at the time of passing the final decree. Her mother (second defendant) had acted as her guardian. Later, the mother married, the plaintiff attained majority, and she too was married off. After the marriage, the plaintiff shifted her residence to Goa.

It came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the first defendant (plaintiff’s uncle) had fraudulently created a document styled as a gift deed in favour of the third defendant, his grandson. The plaintiff claimed one-half share in the properties. The defendants resisted the suit. The plaintiff filed an Application seeking leave to deliver interrogatories as per Order XI Rule 1 of CPC. This application was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed another application seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to the first defendant, which was allowed. The Court also directed the defendant to file an answer-affidavit. This order came to be challenged before the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent to maintain his own case. “Answering the interrogatories might often shorten the trial proceedings and save the time of the court and parties, besides saving expenses for summoning witnesses, documents and the like. This power must not be confined within narrow limits. It should be used liberally to serve the interest of justice. Nevertheless, the power is to be exercised with great care and caution so that it is not abused by any party”, it said.

The Bench also highlighted that there is a slight difference in approach to the law in England and India. “The power to serve interrogatories is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. However, the power is to be exercised within certain limits and with considerable care and caution”, it added.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the first defendant was bound to answer as to under what right he possessed the property gifted to the third defendant. The Trial Court also observed that all those matters could be considered in evidence, and therefore, the Defendant had to answer the interrogatories. On a perusal of the interrogatories, the Bench mentioned that it couldn’t be said that the plaintiff attempted to go on a fishing expedition or embark on a roving inquiry. The attempt of plaintiff was also not to obtain discovery of facts which constituted exclusively the evidence of the adversary's case or title. It was noticed that the Defendant admitted in the written statement that the property involved was allotted to the share of the plaintiff and her mother. “The plaintiff has the right to require defendant No.1 by way of interrogatories as to his title over the property covered by the gift deed executed by him in favour of his grandson (defendant No.3)”, it said.

The Bench found the interrogatories sought to be relevant as they related to only the matters in question. Coming to the issue of subsequent application being filed by the plaintiff, the Bench stated, “A subsequent application seeking leave to deliver interrogatories was filed on a changed cause of action. It cannot be said that the plaintiff is barred from making a second application on a subsequent cause of action. The challenge on the impugned order on this ground also falls to the ground.”

Finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the Civil Petition.

Cause Title: K.C.Sivasankara Panicker v. K.C.Vasanthakumari Alias K.C.vasanthi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:33579)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates R. Rajesh Kormath, K.Dilip

Respondents: Advocates Meena A, Vinod Ravindranath, K.C. Kiran, M.R.Mini, M.Devesh, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Thareeq Anver K., Nivedhitha Prem.V

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala HCJustice K Babu

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.