Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners against the order dated 12.12.2008 by which the prescribed authority has rejected the application filed by the Petitioners under Section 34(i) of the Act for giving reply to the interrogatories by the Respondent. This writ petition has been filed in the year 2008 and has been pending in the Court for the last about three years. The Court Below while rejecting the application for interrogatories has come to the conclusion that the Petitioners want to delay the proceedings.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that intention of the Petitioners is not to delay the proceedings and he has relied upon the judgment rendered in Sohan Singh v. Maiku Lal reported in, 1975 A.L.R. 528 wherein the Court has held that: The object of the Act of providing summary remedy can be achieved by finding that the word 'discovery' used in Section 34(1)(d) of the new Act should not be given a restricted or narrow meaning and that it should not be confined to discovery by documents alone. It is needless to point out that the purpose of providing the procedure of discovery by interrogatories is to shorten the litigation and to save the expenses. It enables a party to obtain an admission from his opponent, which makes his burden of proof easier. Looking at the scheme of the Act and taking the context in which Section 34(1)(d) has been enacted the discovery provided for by Section 34(1)(d) has to be given a wider meaning including discovery by interrogatories as well. The prescribed authority, however, has ample power under Order XI Code of Civil Procedure to strike of irrelevant of useless questions which may not have been any bearing on the controversy involved in the case.;