M.H.BEG, J. - (1.) IN this case, after the framing of issues on a winding up petition of a creditor and before the case could be taken up for final hearing, an application was filed under Order XI, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, on behalf of the petitioning creditor for leave to deliver interrogatories. As many as 94 questions were listed. It was noted on the application that the questions were required to be answered by Shri. Ramgopal Gupta, Shri Ram Prasad Gupta, Shri Pushoa Raj Gupta, Shri S. D. Garg and Shri Gulab Chand Jain, without specifying which questions were to be answered by which party. After considerable argument on the question whether the interrogatories were covered by the issues framed, an order was passed on March 21, 1968, granting leave, under Order XI, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, to deliver these interrogatories upon the company. Before granting leave, the case of each side had to be carefully examined. It was found that matters arising in the case covered a fairly wide field. The issues were also reframed on March 20, 1968. Among the issues, as reframed, was a separate issue on the broad question whether it was just and equitable to wind up the company, apart from the issue whether the company was commercially insolvent. There was also an issue on the question whether the petition is mala fide and liable to be dismissed for this reason.
(2.) AFTER the service of the interrogatories upon the company, a twenty page application was filed on March 27, 1968, on behalf of the company in which general objections were taken to all the interrogatories and objections were also taken to each of the interrogatories. The application purports to be made under Order XI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code. The prayer was that the whole set of interrogatories may be struck out on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably and are vexatious, prolix, oppressive, unnecessary and scandalous. Each interrogatory had, therefore, to be scrutinized together with the objections. The affidavit filed in support of the petition, the counter -affidavit, and the rejoinder affidavit had also to be thoroughly examined. The objections on behalf of the company were three -fold: firstly, that the so -called interrogatories fall outside the scope and purpose of interrogatories which can be served under order XI, Civil Procedure Code ; secondly, that they go outside the scope of the petition itself even after it had been amended ; and, thirdly, that the whole purpose of the interrogatories was mala fide and that they constitute an attempt to defame the company by raising matters which had no material bearing on the issues involved. In England, the interrogatories are allowed for the following purposes : 1. To ascertain the nature of your opponent's case or the material facts constituting his case (see Eade v. Jacobs, [1877] 3 Ex. D. 335, (C.A.), Attorney -General v. Gaskill, [1882] 20 Ch. D. 519 and Marriott v. Chamberlain, [1886] 17 Q.B.D. 154 (C.A).). 2. To support your own case either - (a) directly, by obtaining admission, or (b) indirectly, by impeaching or destroying your adversary's case (see Grumbrecht v. Parry, [1804] 32 W.R. 558, Hennessy v. Wright, [1990] 24 Q.B.D. 445, and Attorney -General v. Newcastle -upon -Tyne Corporation, [1897] 2 Q.B. 384, 394.).
(3.) ORDER XI of our Civil Procedure Code closely follows the rules of practice and procedure evolved in England. I have, therefore, considered it not improper to refer to the object of interrogatories according to the rules which prevail in England. The power to serve interrogatories is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. The subject -matter of Order XI, Civil Procedure Code, is: ' Discovery and Inspection '. It has to be remembered that these remedies were evolved by the Chancellor's Court of Equity. The power to order discovery by means of interrogatories should certainly be used liberally whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interests of justice as observed in Jamaitrai v. Motilal Chamaria, A.I.R. 1960 Cal. 536., by A.N. Ray J. of the Calcutta High Court.;