Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Refusal to Permit Interrogatories at Evidence Stage; Calls Attempt a Dilatory Tactic Beyond Scope of Order 11 CPC

Case Name: Sarbjinder Singh Bhullar @ Bittu Bhullar vs. M/s Primelink Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Others
Date of Judgment: 02 December 2025
Citation: CR-7774-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the Trial Court’s refusal to allow interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC, holding that interrogatories are a pre-trial discovery tool and cannot be invoked after commencement of evidence, especially when the questions sought can be addressed through cross-examination and existing documents.

Summary: The petitioner sought leave to serve interrogatories relating to khasra numbers, area and location of the suit property in a civil suit already at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that interrogatories are meant to narrow issues before trial, not to interrupt proceedings once evidence has begun.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that Order 11 Rule 1 does not expressly prohibit interrogatories at a later stage and that the information sought was essential for fair adjudication. The Court rejected the plea, holding that although the rule contains no explicit bar, its object is clear: interrogatories must aid preparation for trial, not stall ongoing evidence. The Court noted that the suit had been pending for long, several opportunities for recording evidence had already passed, and allowing interrogatories now would inevitably delay the trial.

The Court found that the proposed questions concerned matters easily provable by documentary records such as jamabandis and site plans and could be put to the plaintiff during cross-examination. It reiterated that interrogatories cannot be used as a substitute for cross-examination, nor as a fishing inquiry to force the opposite party to reveal its entire case in advance. The authorities cited by the petitioner were held inapplicable, as they dealt with interrogatories sought at pre-evidence stages, unlike the present case.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Trial Court’s refusal to permit interrogatories at the evidence stage and holding that no jurisdictional error or perversity existed. The petitioner’s attempt to invoke Order 11 was characterised as inconsistent with the object of the provision and potentially dilatory.