JUDGMENT Nagendra Prasad Singh, J : The petitioner in this Civil Revision Application is defendant in a Title Suit, which is pending in the Court of the learned Munsif at Chaibasa. The said suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs-opposite party for eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1947. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiffs-opposite party filed an application before the learned Munsif for leave of the court to deliver the interrogatories to the defendant-petitioner. The questions were six in number and the detail thereof has been mentioned in the application filed before this Court. It appears that the learned Munsif by the impugned order dated 10.12.1974, has granted permission to the plaintiffs-opposite party to serve the interrogatories, in question, upon the petitioner. The learned Munsif in the last line of the impugned order has also directed the defendant-petitioner to answer those interrogatories by the date fixed in the case. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted, the learned Munsif while passing the impugned order has acted with material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him and as such the said order is liable to be set aside by this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that those interrogatories have no relevancy to the facts of the case and they are vexatious, likely to prejudice the defendant-petitioner. In my opinion the petitioner has filed this application under some mis-conception. The impugned order has been passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the learned Munsif by Order 11, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Under the aforesaid Rules a court before whom a suit is pending can grant leave to a plaintiff or a defendant, as the case may be, for expeditious disposal of the suit. The procedure to grant such leave has been prescribed by Rule 2 of Order 11 of the Code. But Rule 6 of Order 11 of the Code prescribed the mode of filing objection by a party who has been directed to answer the interrogatories. Any party who has been directed to answer any interrogatory can file an objection on the ground that any interrogatory is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bonafide for the purpose of the suit. But Rule 6 of Order 11 of the Code prescribed the mode of filing objection by a party who has been directed to answer the interrogatories. Any party who has been directed to answer any interrogatory can file an objection on the ground that any interrogatory is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bonafide for the purpose of the suit. This objection has to be filed along with an affidavit. Thereafter the Court has to hear the parties on the question. Under Rule, 7 of order 11 of the Code any interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that they are unreasonable or vexatious. In my opinion the defendant-petitioner should have filed an objection in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of Order 11 of the Code, pointing out to the learned Munsif as to how the interrogatories, in question, are irrelevant or vexatious. The petitioner instead of doing the same has filed the present revision application before this court; and a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to record a finding as to whether the interrogatories, in question, are relevant or irrelevant. In my view it is not permissible for this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to entertain any such plea. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the last line of the order where the learned Munsif has directed the defendant to answer the interrogatories by the date fixed in the case and has submitted that in view of the said order, now there is no scope for the petitioner to file any objection in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of Order 11 of the Code. In my opinion, the last line of the order in question, can not be read to mean that any statutory right available to the petitioner under Rule 6 of Order 11 has been barred. The petitioner is entitled to file an objection which is to be disposed of by the learned Munsif. Accordingly, I hold that there is no merit in this application and it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.