Northern India Motion Pictures Association vs Harjit Singh etc.

K. Kannan, J.—The revision is against an order permitting interrogatories to be taken by the plaintiff against the defendants. This came to be done in a pending suit after the plaintiff was unable to secure the production of documents in the custody of defendants, which were said to be bulky and voluminous and hence not capable of being produced.

The admitted case is that the plaintiff was only allowed to inspect the documents and even the copies of documents were not permitted to be taken. The Court, which passed the order on the application filed by the plaintiff had merely stated that having regard to the nature of the suit and the reliefs claimed, the interrogatories setting out five questions were required to be answered except question No. 4. The Court has only stated that in respect of interrogatory No. 4, an option was to be given to the defendant whether or not to reply.

The order passed by the Court below in a pending suit, which was merely to facilitate gathering of particulars that could normally cut short the time span of enquiry cannot be interfered in revision. Indeed, it is an irony that a procedure that was meant to save the time of the court from having to require the parties to produce documents and subject the parties to a prolonged trial and instead to secure answers to interrogatories on affidavits has itself resulted in a further prolongation of proceeding by the matter gathering dust in the portals of this Court since 2001. I find no merit in the civil revision petition. Accordingly dismissed.