A.HARIPRASAD, J. - (1.)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused Ext.P1, the impugned order.
(2.)Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.11 of 2015 before the Sub Court, Vadakara. 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. Suit is one for specific performance and other reliefs. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 1 CPC (Ext.P2) permitting him to serve interrogatories on the plaintiff. Admittedly, the trial in the suit has started and witnesses have been examined. At that time, the court below dismissed the application with following directions:
"Heard. The application is for permission to serve interrogatories to the plaintiff. This application is filed after the evidence is over and when the matter is posted for arguments. On perusal of the application it is seen that the application is filed with a view to get some admissions from the plaintiff with respect to a police complaint and writ petition said to have been preferred by the plaintiff. On perusal of the oral evidence of PW1, it is seen that the question sought be put to the plaintiff had already been asked to the witness during his cross examination and he has emphatically denied those facts. Therefore, a subsequent interrogatories with respect to those facts which have already been denied by PW1 do not arise. Interrogatories are meant for restricting the scope of trial in a case. Once the trial is over, there is no scope for such interrogatories with respect to matters which could have been brought out from the witness who has offered himself for cross examination. The application now filed before this court is an abuse of process of law. The parties should have been equipped with all arms before they enter into the trial of the case. They cannot be allowed to go back to the stage of steps again to complicate the trial and to delay the disposal of the case. Moreover, I do not find any merit in this application since the plaintiff has already been examined. The facts sought to be answered by way of interrogatories are those which have to be proved by some other means. Without resorting to that method, the applicant has come with an application of this sort only to see that the proceedings are dragged or delayed. The application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed."

(3.)On going through the above excerpted observations, I am of the view that there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed. The purpose of serving interrogatory is to minimise the scope and cost of evidence. There is no point in serving interrogatories in the middle of examination of the witnesses. Therefore, the court below rightly rejected the prayer.
I find no reason to interfere with the order. The petition is dismissed.