POONAM Srivastav, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that previously a Writ Petition No. 133 (R/c) of 2006 was preferred in this Court challenging two orders dated 15. 9. 2006 on two different applications, one under Order VIII, Rule 9, C. P. C. and the other under Order XI, Rule 1, C. P. C. This Court refused to entertain two orders in a single petition and the writ petition against the impugned order passed on the application under Order XI, Rule 1, C. P. C. was dismissed. However, liberty was given to file separate writ petition in respect of the second order, which is sought to be quashed in the instant writ petition. 3. A specific assertion has been made in the opening paragraphs of the instant writ petition, therefore, without any objection, the writ petition is being heard on merits. 4. The petitioner is a tenant. S. C. C. No. 1 of 2003 was instituted against the petitioner for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment In respect of godown situated in Industrial Area, City Nawabganj, district Barabanki. The case of the plaintiff-landlord is that the godown was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 11,000 but the petitioner did not pay regular rent. On 18. 3. 2000, the petitioner gave an undertaking that he will clear all the arrears by 22. 3. 2000 and also that he will vacate the godown within a period of seven months. The landlord claimed Rs. 1,96,536 as outstanding damages for a period between 30. 9. 2001 to 26. 3. 2003. The petitioner submitted his written statement and disputed the rate of rent, he claimed, the rent was not Rs. 11,000 but Rs. 5,000 per month. The tenant asserted that since the relationship between the landlord and tenant was very cordial, lump sum amount was paid at different intervals which used to be adjusted towards rent. It was further stated in the written statement that the amount of Rs. 11,69,000 was paid in the intervening period starting from 10. 8. 1993 to 20. 11. 1998 and the said amount was paid by a number of bank drafts and cheques, which were duly received and encashed by the opposite party No. 2 or her husband. The contention of the petitioner is that after adjustment of monthly rent from April, 1993 to November, 1998, amounting to Rs. 3,75,000, a balance of Rs. 7,93,000 is still with the landlord which was assured by her that it will be adjusted in future rent. After the replication was filed, certain new facts were brought on record. The tenant made a request for filing additional written statement or amendment in the written statement, which was denied. The order was challenged in the previous writ petition and this Court allowed the petitioner to make the necessary amendment and the writ petition was allowed. The second application moved at the behest of the petitioner-tenant under Order XI, Rule 1, C. P. C. seeking permission for delivery of Interrogatories for examination of opposite party No. 2 relating to 8 cheques, details of which were mentioned in the said application. The plaintiff-landlady had not given any specific reply with regard to those eight cheques and, therefore, the necessity to move the application for interrogatories. Objection was filed by the respondent-landlord and it was stated that the application under Order XI, Rule 1, C. P. C. was only with an intention to delay the proceeding. 5. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the landlady is deliberately avoiding to give specific reply regarding those 8 cheques whereas she has admitted the other cheques and demand drafts in her written statement. The case of the petitioner will stand considerably prejudiced In the event, the interrogatories are not delivered to the landlady for specific answer. This application was dismissed by means of the impugned order. The application was rejected on a finding that at present the tenant is only required to show that he had tendered the cheques and drafts and thereafter it is the burden of the landlady to establish that she had not received those cheques and drafts. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of P. Baton u. Central Bank of India, Calicut, AIR 2000 Ker 24. Learned counsel has tried to show that the object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to record information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining and substantiating his own stand. The Additional District Judge has clearly made an observation that in the instant suit since the cheque and draft numbers have already been given by the tenant-petitioner now the burden has shifted on the landlady to substantiate her denial. 6. In the instant case, I am not inclined to stay the proceeding but at the same time it is evident that the questions in form of interrogatories relate to a very material and valid piece of evidence for a just decision of the case. In fact at a later date the silence on the part of the landlady might prove fatal to the case of the petitioner and, therefore, I am of the view that a specific reply was liable to be given by the contesting respondents. The Court should not shut the petitioner from giving evidence. 7. In the circumstances, I direct the Judge, Small Causes Court to pass afresh order on the application under Order XI, Rule 1, C. P. C. requiring the landlady to submit her specific reply within a period of 15 days from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It is made clear that the proceeding shall not be delayed on account of interrogatories submitted by the petitioner. The matter relates to arrears of rent and also whether the payment has been made or not. There is specific assertion on the part of the petitioner detailing the cheque and draft numbers and the landlady has admitted the receipt of the cheques and drafts but the reasons best known has chosen not to say anything about the 8 cheques, regarding which the interrogatories were sought to be served. The Judge, Small Causes Court shall make every endeavour to ascertain and get the answer from the landlady regarding the queries made by the petitioner-tenant. 8. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Barabanki dated 15. 9. 2006 is set aside and it is directed that fresh orders will be passed without any further delay. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is finally disposed of. .;