A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. delivered the judgment in appeals filed by the Kerala State Waqf Board challenging the orders of the Waqf Tribunal that allowed the delivery of interrogatories to the State Waqf Board.

Interrogatories are a set of questions served by one party to the opposite party, in a civil suit to obtain admissions and narrow down disputed facts.

The question before the Court was whether Order XI Rule 1 CPC, which expressly permits interrogatories “in any suit”, can be invoked before a Waqf Tribunal in an original application under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, and whether such an application can be entertained before completion of pleadings or filing of a written statement.

The Waqf Board argued that Order XI was confined to suits and that the applications were premature since pleadings had not been completed and issues had not been framed. The respondents, on the other hand, relied on Section 30 CPC and Section 83(5) of the Waqf Act to contend that the Tribunal possessed the same procedural powers as a civil court.

The Court noted that Section 83(5) of the Waqf Act states that Waqf Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court and is vested with the same powers as that may be exercised by a civil court under CPC while trying a suit or executing a decree or order.

The Court read this provision alongside Section 30 CPC, which empowers a court, at any time to make orders concerning the delivery and answering of interrogatories, admission of documents and facts, and discovery and inspection.

Reliance was placed on Ammu Ammal v Venkitadri Iyer [1980 KLT 929], where the Court held that Section 30 of CPC confers jurisdiction on the court to make orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories at any time, either of its own motion or on the application of any party.

“Interrogatories are usually served on the opposite party to facilitate proof of his own case, and the administration of interrogatories should be encouraged, as it is a means of obtaining admissions and tends to shorten litigation. Section 30 of the Code confers this power, enabling the court to pass the orders made mention of in that section 'at any time'. Section 30 of the Code vests this jurisdiction in a court, be it trying a suit or executing a decree.” Court added.

The Court also examined Order XI Rule 1, which permits interrogatories by leave of the court, subject to the requirement that they relate to matters in question. Order XI Rule 2 further requires the court to permit only those interrogatories it considers necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings or for saving costs.

The Court further noted that the reference to a “suit” in Order XI Rule 1 cannot by itself, curtail the procedural powers expressly conferred on a Waqf Tribunal by Section 83(5).

It also referred to the Supreme Court's observation in Union of India v Ibrahim Uddin [(2012) 8 SCC 148] that Order XI is intended to save expenses by obtaining information concerning material facts and admissions, and to prevent protracted enquiry into documents or materials in the possession of the opposite party.

The Court also drew from Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi [(1972) 3 SCC 850] the principle that interrogatories must have a reasonably close connection with the “matters in question”; questions that might be relevant in cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories.

The Court thus held that the Waqf Tribunal could not be faulted for permitting the interrogatories in the cases before it, particularly since the questions were found to be relevant and necessary for a fair adjudication and were not shown to be vexatious or unnecessary.

The Court also considered the Board's argument that the proceedings were premature. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India [(2005) 4 SCC 315], the Court observed that prematurity does not necessarily go to the root of jurisdiction unless there is a statutory bar or the premature proceeding suffers from an incurable jurisdictional defect.

The Court thus held that the Waqf Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction, and dismissed all four appeals. The Court granted the Kerala State Waqf Board one month's time from receipt of the judgment to comply with the Tribunal's directions to answer the interrogatories.

Counsel for Appellant: Jamsheed Hafiz

Counsel for Respondent: George Poonthottam (Sr.), Nisha George, Anas. V, Kalam Pasha B, S. Parvathi, T.K. Sreekala, Nikitha Susan Paulson, Uthara Asokan, Krishnendu S.R., Vishakka J, Hasna Ashraf T.A, Anandu U.R, Manju Antoney, C.C. Anoop, K. Shahzad, Nikitha Susan Paulson