IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.76 of 2022 Decided on 08th October, 2025 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Sh. Amar Singh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and petitioner/Insurance Company may be allowed to examine the witness as per interrogatories enclosed with application under Order 26 Rule 4 CPC read with Order 11 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.01.2022, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Sirmaur at Nahan in CMA No.4/N/6 of 2020 in Claim Petition No.121- N/2 of 2016 titled Sh. Amar Singh and others versus Sh. Bishan Singh and others and justice be done.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order in terms whereof the application filed by the petitioner under Order 2 26, Rule 4 (i) read with Order XI, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. The reasoning assigned by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner reads as under:- “This petition has been filed in the year 2016 and the case was fixed for evidence of the respondents when this application has been filed. Section 30 and Order XI Rule 1 to 11, 21 and 22 of CPC covers interrogatories. When, with the leave of the Court, parties administer a set of questions on the other party then it is called 'Interrogatories'. Interrogatories shall be confined to the facts, it shall not be conclusions of law, construction of the court shall consider whether it is necessary in a particular words or documents, or inference from facts. Under C.P.C, this is known as the 'right to obtain information' by the parties. Further, matter, to dispose of the suit fairly or for saving costs. In this case, the interrogatories have been filed after closure of evidence of the petitioner. There were many ways in this high tech age, when the fact in question could be proved. The purpose of filing interrogatories is to shorten the time taken for deciding a civil case and to curtail the delay to produce the witnesses in the Court. However, it is equally true that the Insurance Company has its agents all over the India and when verification of driving licence was done by its authorized agent, he could have been produced in the Court for submission of his finding. Furthermore, in these days when the entire world is fighting with COVID- 19 constantly for three years and proceedings of 3 the Courts are being conducted on-line, therefore, the agent can be examined through video conference. This application has been filed at belated stage, only to delay the proceedings which could even take years. Need not to say for sending interrogatories to the witness and requesting the advocates to travel at a distance very far from here and their costs of staying in the hotels who have taken all safety majors will involve huge cost, which can be done through V.C on click of a button. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that this interrogatory could have been filed at the very beginning when verification was done which could have been completed by the time, the respondents' evidence would have started and therefore, I find force in the claim of the non- applicant that this is nothing but to delay the proceedings of the case. In the case of Govind Narayan And Ors vs Nagendra Nagda and Ors, MANU/RH/0832/2017, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court observed the importance of interrogatories and the time period in which it shall be filed by the party is of importance. The stage of the suit shall be significantly considered by the court. At the same time, it is to be understood that the main purpose of this procedure is to save time and cost by encompassing the issues or narrowing down the disputes. Accordingly, this application is hereby dismissed being filed at belated stage and on the ground that the respondent was aware of the facts, but file this application despite having other means to prove its claim. Application is accordingly disposed off. It after due completion be tagged with the main petition.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings returned in the paras of the impugned order were either perverse or not borne out from the 4 record of the case. Therefore, as it is evident that the filing of the application was nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings and fill up the lacunas and further as the petitioner had not been vigilant of its rights, this Court sees no occasion to interfere with the order under challenge. It could not be disputed before this Court that the application filed under Order 26, Rule 4 (i) read with Order 11, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code was at a belated stage and, therefore, the reasons as are spelled out in the Para-4 to Para-6 of the impugned order are cogent reasons on the basis whereof the application stands dismissed by the learned Tribunal, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 08, 2025 (Vinod)