Order XI CPC | Application for Leave to Serve Interrogatories Need Not Be Decided Ex-Parte, Court Can Issue Notice On Opposite Party

Case: Mamta V. Rishipal

Coram: Justice C Hari Shankar

Case No.: CM(M) 265/2022

Court Observation: “The sequitur would, therefore, be that the opposite party could oppose the grant of such leave,”

“Serving of interrogatories on the opposite party can only, therefore, by leave of Court. The sequitur would, therefore, be that the opposite party could oppose the grant of such leave. Extending of an opportunity to the opposite party to, if it so chooses, oppose grant of leave to serve interrogatories is, therefore, in my view, inbuilt into Order Rule 1,”

“Of course, it may be that, in more cases than not, grant of leave to serve interrogatories may be the norm; that, however, cannot foreclose a Court of its right to issue notice on an application to serve interrogatories on the opposite party, before deciding whether to grant leave or not.”

“In the first place, accepting of such an interpretation would result in replacing the word “may” in Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC with the word “shall”, and the discretion vested in the Court, by Order XI Rule 1, on the issue of whether or not to grant leave to serve interrogatories, would stand reduced to a nullity. Secondly, the existence of the right, in the opposite party, to object to interrogatories under Order XI Rule 6, cannot preclude a Court from issuing notice on the application seeking leave to serve interrogatories, before deciding whether to grant leave or not to grant leave,”

“No exception can, therefore, be taken to the decision of the learned ADJ to issue notice on the application of the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1,”

Previous Posts

No Claim Certificate (NCC) Must Be Examined in the Context of Relevant Documents and the Covering Letter under Which It Is Issued: Delhi HC

Performance Security Cannot Be Retained After Acknowledgement of Due Performance: Delhi High Court

As Is Where is in a License Agreement Does Not Absolve the Contracting Parties to Make a Minimal Disclosure: Delhi High Court

Advocate Who Voluntarily Suspended Legal Practice for Govt Employment No Longer a Member of the Bar: Kerala High Court

No Distinction between Decree or Awards Where Amounts Are In Foreign Currencies For Purposes Of Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Person Ineligible U/s 29A IBC To Submit Resolution Plan Cannot Propose Scheme Of Compromise & Arrangement U/s 230 Companies Act 2013: Supreme Court Download Judgement

Keywords