JUDGMENT K.B. Asthana, J. - The question that arises in this revision is whether a counsel representing a party in any legal proceeding can be asked to answer interrogatories within the meaning of Order 11 as if he was a party to the suit. The court below relying upon a decision of the Nagpur High Court in the case of K.C. Majdmdar v. Surat Singh Ramnaresh Singh Rajpur, A.I.R. 1941 Nag 205 held that the words "opposite party" used in Rule 1 of Order 11 include their counsel or lawyer representing them. My reading of the Nagpur case does not show that any such proposition of law has been laid down therein. However, learned counsel for the opposite party Sri S. K. Verma referred to a division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohammad Mehdi v. Mt. Narain Dei, A.I.R. 1949 Alld. 326 where it has been held that reading Order 11, Rule 9 with Order 3, Rule 1 it becomes clear that the general agent of a party is competent to answer interrogatories. Paragraph 13 of the report shows that in that case the interrogatories were served on the Raja Mohammad Mehdi who was a party to the suit. They were answered by his general agent by an. affidavit. In those circumstances the Division Bench rightly held that the answer furnished by the general agent of the Raja could be read as evidence in the suit. Thus this Division Bench case relied upon by Sri Verma also does not support the proposition that the interrogatories can directly be served on the general agent of a party. 2. It is difficult for me to agree with the view taken by the court below that Sri Kalpanath Singh who was appearing as a. counsel for the defendant before the arbitrator could be called upon to furnish evidence by serving upon him interrogatories under Order 11 of the C. P. Code. The words 'opposite party' as used in Rule 1 of Order 11 do not include their counsel or general agent of a party to the-suit. It would be an erroneous interpretation to give an extended meaning to the words 'opposite party' as used in Rule 1 of Order 11. Obviously a counsel representing a party or its agent by no stretch of language can be said to be a party to the suit. It would be an erroneous interpretation to give an extended meaning to the words 'opposite party' as used in Rule 1 of Order 11. Obviously a counsel representing a party or its agent by no stretch of language can be said to be a party to the suit. Such a person, therefore, cannot be called upon to furnish evidence of facts in his personal knowledge by serving upon him interrogatories. It may be open to the plaintiff to have Sri Kalpanath Singh summoned as a witness at the trial and ask him such questions as legitimately can be put to him in regard to the proceedings before the arbitrator. 3. For the reason given above, I allow this application in revision, set aside the order of the court below and reject the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 11 for serving upon Sri Kalpanath Singh interrogatories. I make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.