In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court provided significant clarification on the application of oral examinations, or viva voce, in the context of interrogatories under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court emphasized that such oral examinations should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, particularly when a party has either failed to respond or has provided insufficient answers to interrogatories.
Legal Framework
Interrogatories serve as a pre-trial discovery tool, allowing one party to obtain pertinent information from the opposing party to streamline the issues for trial. The procedure for administering and responding to interrogatories is outlined in Order XI of the CPC. Specifically, Rule 11 addresses situations where a party either omits to answer or provides inadequate responses. In such cases, upon application by the interrogating party, the court may direct the defaulting party to furnish answers, either through an affidavit or, in rare instances, via oral examination.
Case Background
The matter before the High Court involved a petitioner who sought an order for the oral examination of the defendants. The petitioner contended that the defendants had not adequately addressed the questions posed in the interrogatories. However, the Subordinate Court dismissed this application, noting that the petitioner failed to specify which particular questions were inadequately answered or contained contradictions. Upon review, the High Court concurred with this assessment, highlighting the necessity for specificity in applications under Order XI Rule 11.
Court's Observations
Justice P. Krishna Kumar, presiding over the case, underscored that while parties have the right to seek recourse under Order XI Rule 11, the determination of whether the response should be via affidavit or oral examination rests solely with the court. The judge cautioned against parties engaging in "hide-and-seek" tactics, wherein they provide evasive or incomplete answers. In instances where the court determines that a party, despite being granted an opportunity to clarify via affidavit, continues to furnish unsatisfactory responses, it retains the discretion to mandate an oral examination.
The court further elucidated that the primary objective of interrogatories is the discovery of facts, enabling a litigant to compel the opposing party to disclose information pertinent to the matter at hand. Responses to interrogatories, along with any documents revealed during the discovery process, become integral components of the evidentiary record.
Guidelines for Practitioners
The judgment delineates clear guidelines for legal practitioners:
Specificity in Applications: When filing an application under Order XI Rule 11, it is imperative to precisely identify which interrogatory responses are deficient and require further elucidation.
Avoiding Fishing Expeditions: Parties must refrain from using applications for further answers as a means to embark on exploratory inquiries without a concrete basis.
Court's Discretion: The decision to direct a party to respond via affidavit or to subject them to oral examination lies within the court's purview, based on the circumstances presented.
Consequences of Non-Compliance: Should a party fail to adhere to the court's directives under Order XI Rule 11, the court possesses the authority to impose sanctions, which may include striking out the defense or dismissing the suit.
Conclusion
This ruling by the Kerala High Court serves to reinforce the judicious use of oral examinations in the context of interrogatories, reserving them for situations where written responses are either absent or insufficient. By emphasizing the need for specificity and cautioning against misuse, the court aims to uphold the integrity of the discovery process, ensuring that it serves its intended purpose of fact-finding and streamlining judicial proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.