Oral Examination To Explain Interrogatories Shall Be Done Only In Extraordinary Situations: Kerala High Court

Under Order XI Rule 11 of CPC, if a person interrogated omits to answer or answers insufficiently, the Court on an application by the interrogating party can direct the opposite party to answer or answer further either by affidavit or by viva voice.

Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that the party cannot apply for a particular course of action. The party can only make an application under Order XI Rule 11 and the manner in which the other party shall answer shall be decided by the Court.

The Court, however reminded that parties should not play “hide-and- seek” with the Court and if it finds that the party has given unsatisfactory answers even after being given an opportunity to answer further by affidavit, it can order for viva voice examination.

The Court held that striking out defence or dismissing the suit shall be done only if the opposite party has failed to comply with the direction of the court made under Order XI Rule 11.

A person can use interrogatories for examination of the opposite parties under Order 11 Rule 1. The Court observed that interrogatories are aimed at discovering facts and enables the litigant to compel his opponent to disclose facts related to the matter in question. Answers given on interrogatories and documents disclosed on the application for discovery of documents will form part of the evidence.

The High Court pointed out that apart from the 2 methods mentioned under Order XI Rule 11, the questioning party can also apply for the leave of the court to deliver a fresh set of interrogatories if it would help to pinpoint the shortcomings in the reply.

The petitioner had applied for viva voice examinations of the defendants saying that they did not fully answered the questions on the interrogatory. The Sub Court rejected this application as it did not specifically state to which question the answers were incomplete or contradictory. The High Court also noticed the application does not specifically pointed the insufficiencies or incongruity.

The Court observed that in an application under Order XI Rule 11, the applicant should be specific about which part of the interrogatories require further examination. The Court added that the party cannot fish for answers under the guise of requiring further answers.

The High Court however granted the petitioner 2 weeks' time to make a proper application before the Sub-Court.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates C. G. Bindu, C. G. Ajitha

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates P. V. Jayachandran, G. N. Deepa, Nidhi Balachandran

Case No: OP(C) 3329 of 2017

Case Title: Dasan v Yathra and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 110