Interrogatories Cannot Be Used to Shift the Burden of Proof or Substitute Cross-Examination

The Petitioner (Defendant No. 1) is the brother of Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff). The Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 975/2015 seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties

Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement asserting a prior partition and severance of status

During the recording of evidence, Defendant No. 1 filed I.A. No. VI under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking leave to administer interrogatories to the Plaintiff regarding the alleged prior partition

The Trial Court (V Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Athani) rejected the application on September 4, 2019

The Petitioner challenged this rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for delivery of interrogatories when the purpose was to elicit information regarding a plea of prior partition

2. Whether a party can use interrogatories under Order XI of the CPC to shift the burden of proof or collect evidence for their own defense

The court applied Order XI Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

Interrogatories are intended to facilitate the discovery of relevant facts, shorten litigation, and obtain admissions on matters in controversy

They cannot be used as a substitute for cross-examination, to disclose the opponent's evidence, or to shift the burden of proof from the party asserting a fact

Interrogatories must have a direct nexus with the issues and be necessary for a fair disposal or saving of costs

The High Court found that the Petitioner’s application was a "fishing or roving enquiry" aimed at filling lacunae in his defense of prior partition

Since the Petitioner asserted the specific plea of prior partition, the burden of proof lies squarely on him to establish it through documentary or oral evidence

The court reasoned that the proposed questions were designed to compel the Plaintiff to provide answers supporting the defense, which exceeds the scope of Order XI

Because the suit is a partition dispute between brothers, the existence of joint family status or previous partition can be effectively tested through standard cross-examination during trial

The court noted that because the information can be elicited during trial, the test of "call necessity" under Order XI was not satisfied

Interrogatories cannot be used as a substitute for trial and cross-examination, nor to compel an opponent to disclose their evidence

The Trial Court’s dismissal of I.A. No. VI was upheld