Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice K. Babu has dismissed a petition challenging the trial court’s order granting leave to the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories to the first defendant under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court upheld the trial court’s direction to proceed with the interrogatories despite objections based on the stage of trial and a prior application that was not pressed. The Court held that the interrogatories related to matters in question and did not amount to a fishing expedition, thereby refusing to interfere with the impugned order.

The petition was filed by the first defendant in a civil suit pending before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Manjeri, challenging the order dated 15.10.2019, which allowed the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories. The plaintiff, her mother (second defendant), and the petitioner (first defendant) are members of the Kuttipurath Chelath Tharawad. The plaintiff is the niece of the petitioner.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits All Accused In Murder Case | Holds High Court Proceeded On Presumptions And Assumptions Based On The Story Scripted By The Prosecution Without Any Legal Evidence

A preliminary decree for partition in respect of the tharawad properties was passed in O.S. No.76/1960 by the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kozhikode, on 03.01.1970. The plaintiff was a minor at the time, and her mother, the second defendant, acted as her guardian. Upon attaining majority and subsequent marriage, the plaintiff moved to Goa.

Item Nos. 32, 36, and 81 from the final decree proceedings were allotted to the plaintiff and the second defendant. Properties allotted to the petitioner included items numbered 256(B), 47(9), 49(3), 66(A), 419, and 349 to 382. In the present suit, the plaintiff claimed that her share in the plaint schedule properties was jointly managed by her mother and herself. She approached the second defendant for partition and was advised to contact the petitioner. When she did, the petitioner claimed sole ownership of the properties.

The plaintiff alleged that the petitioner fraudulently executed a gift deed (No.4283/2012) in favour of his grandson, the third defendant. She sought declaration of her one-half share in the suit properties and contended that the gift deed was void.

The petitioner contested the suit by asserting that the decree in O.S. No.76/1960 had not been executed, rendering the properties co-sharership properties. He denied the joint possession claim and stated that the plaintiff and her mother no longer had any title or interest in the property. He relied on the gift deed and claimed that the third defendant was in rightful possession.

Earlier, the plaintiff had filed I.A. No.255/2017 seeking permission to deliver interrogatories but withdrew the application on 28.07.2017 before the trial commenced. The plaintiff later filed I.A. No.843/2019 to deliver interrogatories to the petitioner. The trial court allowed this application and directed the petitioner to file his answer by 26.10.2019.

The petitioner challenged this order on grounds that the interrogatories were not relevant to the matters in issue, that the trial was at an advanced stage, and that the second application was barred due to the earlier withdrawal. The plaintiff countered by stating that the application was filed due to changed circumstances after it became clear that final decree records were not available.

Justice K. Babu recorded that the objective of serving interrogatories was to enable a party to obtain information necessary for maintaining their case, stating: “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.”

The Court stated that interrogatories must be relevant to the matters in question and not serve as tools for speculative inquiry. It recorded: “The interrogatories should not be allowed to ascertain the nature of one’s opponent’s case. But it may be allowed to support one’s own case.”

In reference to the plea that the plaintiff was on a fishing expedition, the Court observed: “Going by the interrogatories sought to be delivered, it cannot be said that the plaintiff’s attempt is to go on a fishing expedition or embark on a roving inquiry.”

It further noted that the trial court had weighed the absence of final decree records in granting the application: “What weighed the Court below to order interrogatories was that the final judgment and decree were not available in the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tirur.”

The Court restated the relevance of the questions asked, particularly regarding the petitioner’s possession and title: “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).”

Addressing the timing of the interrogatory request, the Court stated: “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 Court recorded that no prejudice was shown by the petitioner: “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.”

The Court also noted that the second application could not be barred simply due to the earlier application being dismissed as not pressed: “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.”

The Court held that the impugned order required no interference.

The Court observed that the plaintiff had consented to dismiss I.A No.255/2017 as not pressed on 28.07.2017 before the commencement of the trial, which began on 07.03.2019. On 28.03.2019, the plaintiff reported to the Court that the final judgment and decree in I.A No.512/1970 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur, were not traced out.

Also Read: Delhi High Court: Express Waiver Without Knowledge of Tribunal Composition Is No Waiver; Unilateral Appointments Struck Down, Directs Fresh Arbitration Under Its Oversight

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A No.843/2019, which was allowed by the Court on 15.10.2019. The subsequent application seeking leave to deliver interrogatories was filed on a changed cause of action.

The Court held that it could not be said that the plaintiff was barred from making a second application on a subsequent cause of action.

The challenge to the impugned order on this ground was rejected. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, and the Original Petition (Civil) was dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: R. Rajesh Kormath, K. Dilip

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

Case Title: K.C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K.C. Vasanthakumari Alias K.C. Vasanthi and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:33579

Case Number: O.P (C) No. 2794 of 2019

Bench: Justice K. Babu

[Read/Download order]