Discovery by Interrogatory

INTRODUCTION

The CPC mentions:

ORDER XI : DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION

Rule 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 be
deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination
of a witness.

In law, interrogatories (also known as requests for further information) are a formal set of
written questions propounded by one litigant and required to be answered by an adversary, in
order to clarify matters of fact and help to determine in advance what facts will be presented at
any trial in the case.

Interrogatories are a list of written questions designed by one person and is required to be
answered by another party. The reason for interrogatories is to determine facts that can be used or
presented during a trial. Many questions arise when people are dealing with interrogatories.
Many people turn to the Experts for answers to the tough questions. Below are five of the top
interrogatories questions answered by the Experts.

Outline

The purpose of this rule is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the
purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary. The main object
of interrogatories is to save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from
his opponent information as to the facts material regarding the question in dispute between them
or to obtain admission of any facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between
them.

As a general rule, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either
to maintain the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The
power to serve interrogatories as it appears is not meant to be confined within narrow technical
limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of
justice.

However, this can be exercised within certain limits. The power to order interrogatories to he
served and answer should be used with considerable care and caution, so that it is not abused by
any party. A party entitled to interrogate his opponent with a view to ascertain what case he has
to meet and the facts relied on and to limit the generality of the pleadings and find out what is
really is in issue.

Critical Review

The recording of evidence of a witness in his chief-examination shall be by affidavit of the said
witness and a copy of it shall be furnished to the opposite party.

When documents are filed in Court along with the affidavit, the relevancy and admissibility of
such documents has to be determined by court.

The cross-examination can be done in the presence of Presiding Officer of the Court or get it
recorded by a Commissioner to be appointed by court out of panel of Commissioners prepared
by the district court or the High Court.

The remuneration to be given to Commissioner for this purpose can be fixed by the Court. The
court can appoint a commissioner for examination of witness residing within the local limits of
his jurisdiction (Vide Section 29 of Amendment Act 46 of 1999).
During the examination of witnesses, the court receives objections as to a question as leading,
irrelevant, inadmissible, etc., Many a time, the court also is confronted with objection about
admissibility of documents on the grounds of non-registration, unstamped or under-stamped,
unproved, exhibited without proper foundation, unattested, etc.

The court is expected to hear both sides in such a case, and shall overrule or sustain objections
by giving reasons, either in the deposition or by a separate order.