IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1014 OF 2020 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court against the order and decree passed in IA.No.752/2016 in OS.No.500/2012 dated 06-01-2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor. Between: 1. A.Tarakeswara Naidu, S/o. A.Nagaraja Naidu, 2. A.Prakash Babu, S/o.A.Nagamja Naidu. (Both are residing at Muttrapalle Village, Kukkala Palli Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District.) ...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS AND 1. Nagaraja Naidu, s/o.Late .A.Chengalraya Naidu, 2. A.Giri, s/o. Late A.Kannaiah Naidu. 3. A.Sreedhar, S/o.Late A.Kannaiah Naidu. 4. A.Vimalavathi, w/o.Nagaraja Naidu (Exparte). (R1 to R4 are residing at Muttrapalle village, Kukkala Palli Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District.) 5. A.Doraswamy Naidu, s/o.Nallamma Naidu. 6. D.Jawahar, s/o.Doraswamy Naidu. 4. 7. P.Kumaraswamy Naidu, s/o.Nallamma Naidu. (R5 to R7 are residing at care of PES educations Institutions Hanumantha Nagar, Bangalore.) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OS.No.500/2012 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Chittoor pending CRP in this Hon'ble court. Counsel for the Petltioner(s):SRI. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7: SODUM ANVESHA The Court made the following ORDER:- HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1014 of 2020 ORDER: This revision petition is filed against the order dated 06.01.2020 in I.A.No.752 of 2016 in O.S.No.500 of 2012 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 2. Introduction offsets: Petitioners are the plaintiffs. The suit O.S.No.500 of 2012 was filed for partition of suit schedule property against the defendants. Written statements were said to be filed. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed the above I.A under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC to permit the Petitioners to file a questionnaire interrogatory, directing the Respondents to file their answers for the questions raised. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the application was filed four years after institution of the suit and that there was no specific provision under which the Respondents/defendants have to answer the questionnaire. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. Heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the Respondents. 4. Contentions: Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that need for interrogatories is necessary to understand the scope of trial and that would shorten the litigation. It was further contended that the trial Court 2 P had erred in dismissing the application on the ground of delay, as the application for interrogatories would be filed prior to the commencement of trial and after pleadings or settlement of issues and therefore the delay is not a factor for consideration in this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned order and contended that calling upon the defendants to answer interrogatories is unwarranted as the same are subject matter of the trial. 6. Reasoning: The Order 11 CPC provides for interrogatories and the procedure to be followed for adjudication of the suit. The interrogatories, though hardly followed by the District Courts, has been consistently held to be a step which would help in shortening the time for adjudicating the suit and give more clarity to the process of trial. 7. The Order 11 CPC as mentioned supra provides for interrogatories on which the parties to the suit are called upon to answer facts in issue in writing. The interrogatories can be sought by plaintiff or defendant to the suit with the leave of Court. If the answers by the party to the suit amount to ‘admission’ of a disputed fact, the Court can pass judgment on such admission by following the procedure under Order 12 CPC. The above demonstrates the sequentiality of procedure prescribed under the Code. The seriousness of Order 11 CPC is apparent on reading of Order 11 Rule 21 CPC, which enables the Court to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution if the plaintiff refuses to answer interrogatories or for discovery on inspection 3 of documents. Similarly, the written statement of the defendant can be struck off and he would be placed in the same position as if he had not defended. 8. The answers elucidated from the parties to the suit at that stage would crystalize the position of the parties regarding the dispute in the suit and would help the Court in having better clarity regarding the issues framed and the scope of trial. The importance of this step was legislatively recognized and is now a mandatory facet of procedure for the commercial suits (albeit with certain modifications) filed under the Commercial Courts re- Act, 2015. 9. In Ramlalsao v. Tansingh Lalsingh\ it was held at Paragraph 10 as under: “10. After the written statement was filed the plaintiff sought leave to deliver interrogatories for the examination of both the defendants. Answers to these interrogatories were necessary to elicit their admissions to support the plaintiff’s case and destroy the case of the defendants. The learned Judge erroneously refused leave on the ground that the Interrogatories were not material at that stage of the suit, meaning probably, before the oral evidence was recorded. The application for discovery of documents was also disposed of on the same ground. We are of the view that these orders are erroneous. The right of a party to deliver interrogatories to his opponentandget answers from him is a valuable one In conducting his cause and he should not lightly be deprived of It. It must be remembered that AMR 1952 NAGPUR 135 4 discovery of facts and documents often tends to shorten litigation and save expenses. The learned Judge had not framed all the issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. If he had framed these issues and permitted the parties to make full use of Orders 11 and 12, Civil Procedure Code, the trial would have been shortened and he would have found ample material to decide the case correctly. Probably, the preliminary decree could have been passed even without going into oral evidence.” 10. Similarly, this Court in M.Kishan Rao and others v. R.Subramanyam^ held that power to serve the interrogatories should not be confined within narrow technical limits, but it must be exercised liberally so as to shorten the litigation and serve ends of justice. Paragraph 16 is extracted below: “16. After settlement of issues, a party to the suit may require information from his adversary as to the facts or as to documents in possession or power of such party relevant to the issue in the suit, and information as to facts is required, the party is allowed to put a questions to his adversary. These questions are called interrogatories. The Court would go through the proposed questions and if it consider of them proper, will compel the other side to answer them on oath before trial. This is called discovery of facts. Interrogatory means to ask questions or to make enquiry closely or thoroughly. The function of interrogatories is to enable a party to obtain from the opposite party admissions or evidence of material facts to be adduced at the trial or to appraise the strength or weakness of the case before the trial and thereby to assist in the fair '2010 (4) ALT 123 \ 5 % disposal of the proceedings at or before the trial or in saving costs. The right to administer interrogatories, however, is neither absolute nor unqualified. Every suit or action contemplates two sets of facts viz. (1) facta probanda (facts constituting party's case) and (2) facta probantia (facts constituting evidence). The party is entitled to know beforehand only facta probanda and not facta probantia. The power to serve interrogatories should not be confined within narrow technical limits, but it must be exercised liberally so as to shorten the litigation and serve ends ofJustice. Interrogatories must be directed to facts relevant "any matters in issue" In this case also, the questions posed by the Petitioners in their questionnaire attached to the interrogatory applications are relating to facts in issue and the defendants cannot dodge answering the same. 11. 12. Therefore, the order of the trial Court dated 06.01.2020 is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 3. One CC to Sri. S Lakshminarayana Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sodum Anvesha, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies RDB CSC HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1014 of 2020 ,g ) 0 JUN 20?5 O •^Jj ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION