Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice K Babu held that a subsequent application to deliver interrogatories is maintainable when there is a changed cause of action or subsequent developments, even if an earlier application was dismissed as not pressed. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of K. C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K. C. Vasanthakumari @ K. C. Vasanthi and others (2025). 

What was the Background of K. C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K. C. Vasanthakumari @ K. C. Vasanthi and others (2025) Case ? 

• The case involves members of the Kuttipurath Chelath Tharawad (a family), where the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are family members. 
• The property in dispute originally belonged to the tharawad and was subject to partition proceedings in O.S No.76/1960 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode. 
• A preliminary decree was passed on 03rd January 1970, and in the final decree proceedings dated 30th August 1971, the properties were partitioned among family members. 
• The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the final decree, with her mother (defendant No.2) acting as her guardian. 
• Defendant No.2 later remarried, and the plaintiff attained majority on 09th July 1972, after which she married and moved to Goa. 
• Certain properties were set apart for the plaintiff and defendant No.2 jointly, while other properties were allocated to defendant No.1. 
• The plaintiff alleges that her share in the properties is managed by defendant No.2, who refused her request for partition on 01th October 2014. 
• Upon approaching defendant No.1, the plaintiff discovered that he had allegedly fraudulently created document No.4283/2012, a gift deed in favour of defendant No.3 (his grandson). 
• The plaintiff contends that defendant No.1 had no right to execute this deed and claims entitlement to one-half share in the properties. 
• The defendants argue that the final decree remains unexecuted, that the properties have become co-sharership properties, and that the plaintiff should have filed an execution application before 09th July 1974. 
• Defendant No.1 further denies the plaintiff's title or interest in the properties, claiming defendant No.3 possesses the property under settlement deed No.4283/2012. 
• The plaintiff filed I.A No.255/2017 seeking leave to deliver interrogatories, which was dismissed as not pressed, and later filed I.A No.843/2019 for the same purpose, which was allowed by the Trial Court. 
• Defendant No.1 challenged this order in the present Original Petition before the Kerala High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed that the object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from their opponent for maintaining their own case. 
• The Court noted that answering interrogatories might shorten trial proceedings, save time, and reduce expenses for summoning witnesses and documents. 
• The Court distinguished between the laws on interrogatories in England and India, noting that in India, interrogatories must be confined to facts relevant to matters in question in the suit. 
• The Court emphasized that the power to allow interrogatories should not be confined within narrow limits but should be used liberally to serve the interests of justice. 
• The Court observed that interrogatories should not be allowed to ascertain the nature of one's opponent's case but may be allowed to support one's own case. 
• The Court stated that a party is not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of the adversary's case or title. 
• The Court noted that interrogatories relating to confidential communications between an opponent and legal advisors or involving disclosures injurious to public interests are not permissible. 
• The Court observed that when relevant documents like the final judgment and decree could not be traced from the Trial Court, this resulted in a "changed" cause of action. 
• The Court held that a subsequent application seeking to deliver interrogatories is not barred even in cases where the previous application was dismissed as not pressed, provided there is a subsequent cause of action. 
• The Court determined that the merit of a petition seeking leave to deliver interrogatories should be decided on the touchstone of 'prejudice' even in advanced stages of trial. 
• The Court found that the interrogatories sought to be delivered were relevant to the matters in question and were not intended to test the credibility of defendant No.1. 
• The Court concluded that defendant No.1 had not demonstrated that answering the interrogatories would cause prejudice to his case. 

What is Order XI Rule I of Code of Civil Procedure ,1908 (CPC) ? 

• Order XI Rule 1 governs the procedure for disclosure, discovery, and inspection of documents in civil proceedings. 
• The rule establishes a mandatory framework requiring parties to disclose all relevant documents at the earliest stage of litigation. 
• Under Rule 1(1), a plaintiff must file a comprehensive list of all documents in their power, possession, control, or custody pertaining to the suit along with the plaint. 
• The plaintiff's disclosure obligation extends to three categories of documents:  
  • Documents referred to and relied upon in the plaint 
  • Documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings, regardless of whether they support or are adverse to the plaintiff's case 
  • Documents that may be produced later for specific purposes, such as cross-examination or rebuttal 
• The rule requires the plaintiff to specify whether the disclosed documents are originals, office copies, or photocopies, and provide details regarding parties to each document, mode of execution, issuance, receipt, and line of custody. 
• The plaintiff must submit a declaration on oath that all relevant documents have been disclosed and that no other documents pertaining to the facts and circumstances remain in their possession, control, or custody. 
• For urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents, subject to court approval, and must file such documents within thirty days along with the requisite oath. 
• The rule imposes restrictions on the plaintiff's ability to rely on previously undisclosed documents, permitting such reliance only with leave of court upon establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure. 
• Similarly, defendants are required to file a list of all relevant documents along with their written statement or counter-claim, subject to parallel disclosure obligations. 
• The rule creates a continuing duty of disclosure that persists until the final disposal of the suit, ensuring that newly discovered relevant documents are promptly brought to the court's attention. 
• The rule establishes a robust document disclosure regime that promotes transparency, reduces surprise at trial, and facilitates the efficient resolution of factual disputes. 
• This rule is part of the broader framework of the Civil Procedure Code designed to ensure fair, efficient, and expeditious resolution of civil disputes.