Waqf Tribunals may permit relevant interrogatories in original applications under CPC Section 30.

The respondents filed original applications before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995, challenging the State Waqf Board’s order dated 20 May 2019.

They applied under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for leave to serve interrogatories seeking information about compliance with statutory procedures for declaring the property waqf property.

The Board objected that Order XI applies only to suits and that the applications were premature, including because the original applications’ delay had not yet been condoned.

On 20 December 2025, the Tribunal allowed the applications and directed the Board to answer the interrogatories within one month.

The Board appealed, and the High Court heard the four appeals together.

1. Whether the Waqf Tribunal could entertain applications for leave to deliver interrogatories in proceedings under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, although Order XI Rule 1 CPC refers to suits.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in permitting the interrogatories and directing the Board to answer them in the circumstances of these cases.

Section 83(5) of the Waqf Act deems the Waqf Tribunal a civil court and gives it the powers exercisable by a civil court under the CPC while trying a suit or executing a decree or order.

Section 30 CPC empowers a court, “at any time,” to make orders concerning the delivery and answering of interrogatories.

Under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leave may be granted for interrogatories relating to matters in question where they are necessary for fair disposal or saving costs; they must have a reasonably close connection with those matters and may be refused if irrelevant, vexatious, oppressive, unnecessary, or otherwise objectionable.

Ammu Ammal v. Venkitadri Iyer supports the availability of Section 30 powers in proceedings beyond the trial of a suit, including execution proceedings.

Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi requires a reasonably close connection between interrogatories and the matters in question.

P. Balan v. Central Bank of India states that interrogatories should be used to obtain relevant information or admissions to assist a party’s case, shorten litigation, and serve justice, subject to careful scrutiny.

Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India establishes that prematurity does not automatically deprive a court of jurisdiction; whether relief should be granted depends on the circumstances and any applicable statutory bar.

The Tribunal was deemed a civil court under Section 83(5), and Section 30 CPC conferred power to order answers to interrogatories at any time; the fact that Order XI Rule 1 is framed in terms of suits did not, therefore, defeat the Tribunal’s authority to entertain the applications.

The interrogatories concerned the procedures allegedly followed by the Board in making the very order challenged in the original applications, and the applicants sought information relevant to adjudicating that challenge.

The High Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment that the interrogatories were relevant and necessary, not vexatious or unnecessary, and that the Board had not asserted privilege or another valid ground for withholding the information.

Applying the principles governing interrogatories and the Tribunal’s statutory powers, the Court found no basis to interfere with the orders.

It dismissed all four appeals and granted the Board one month from receipt of a copy of the judgment to comply with the Tribunal’s directions.