JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Plaintiffs in Title Suit No 38 of 1977 are the Petitioners in this revision. Defendant No. 1 filed a petition under Rules 1 and 4 of Order 11, CPC requiring the Plaintiffs to answer the questions mentioned in the said petition. The Plaintiffs-Petitioners filed an affidavit answering those questions. Thereafter, a petition under rule of Order 11, CPC was filed, and on a consideration of that petition along with the counter thereto the Court below has passed the impugned order directing the Plaintiffs to answer questions Nos. 4 and 5 of the interrogatories and to give further answer to question Nos. 2 and 6. This revision has been filed against the said order. 2. Question No. 2 in the Defendant No. 1's petition is as follows: 2. Out of the written statement 'A' schedule properties, which are self acquired properties of the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1, please give from whom purchased, when purchased, whether by registered purchase. If so, the date of registration. The answer to that question is as follows: That all the properties described in written statement 'A' schedule are the self acquired properties of the late father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1. The title deeds of the acquisition are not in possession of these Plaintiffs. So these Plaintiffs are unable to answer a part of question No. 2. Question No. 2 was in respect of the 'A' schedule properties mentioned in the written statement. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that those properties are not included in the plaint schedule properties. His submission appears to be correct from a general reading of the written statement. As query in respect of properties, not included in the plaint schedule was made, the plain tiffs were free to answer that question in their own way giving whatever details they had with them or within their knowledge. While furnishing the answer to that question the Plaintiffs have stated that the said properties are the self acquired properties of the late father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1. That is in consonance with the case put forward by the Defendants in respect of the said properties. While furnishing the answer to that question the Plaintiffs have stated that the said properties are the self acquired properties of the late father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1. That is in consonance with the case put forward by the Defendants in respect of the said properties. With regard to the second part of the said question, the Plaintiffs have stated that the tale deed of acquisition of the said properties is not in their possession and w the Plaintiffs are not able to answer that part of the question. I do not find anything wrong in the said answer. The petitions were under Rules 1, 4 and 11 of Order 11, CPC and the party interrogated was expected to answer the questions in his own manner. If of course the said party gives evasive or value answers to the questions asked, the Court, under Rule 11 of Order 11, Code of Civil Procedure, may ask him to furnish further answers to the said questions. But he cannot be forced, directed or compelled to answer any question in a particular manner so as to suit the other party's liking or convenience, or to give discovery on oath of any document in respect of the questions framed. Reply or answer to a question can be given as desired by the party answering the question, without of course evading to answer the question or giving vague and vacillating answer to the same. It is left to the Court or the party asking the question to use any portion of the answer furnished by the party as provided to Rule 22 of Order 11, Code of Civil Procedure, or the Court may ultimately reject any portion of the same by declaring the same as irrelevant or may ignore the same for all' intents and purposes. Moreover, on serving interrogatories under Rules 1, 4 and 11 or Order 11, CPC one party cannot compel the other party to give discovery on oath of any document or to produce any document while answering those questions. As the Plaintiffs have expressed their inability to answer the said question by giving a reasonable answer, no exception can be taken to that answer. 2A. As the Plaintiffs have expressed their inability to answer the said question by giving a reasonable answer, no exception can be taken to that answer. 2A. Question No. 4 is as follows: Out of the 'A' schedule properties of the written statement which are recorded in C.S. in the name of the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1. The answer to the same is as follows: That Question No. 4 can never be answered by the plaintiffs as the current settlement record of rights in respect of the written statement 'A' schedule properties are not with these Plaintiffs. In my estimation no exception can be taken to the answer furnished by the Plaintiffs to the above question. The Court below has merely stated that the Plaintiffs have not answered that question but has not stated any convincing reason for arriving at the said conclusion. The answer to question No. 5, which is as follows: Out of the 'A' schedule properties of the written statement, which are homestead and bari lands and which are agricultural lands? is that- That question No. 5 cannot be answered by these Plaintiffs as the settlement map of the village is not in their (Plaintiffs) possession. I am of the opinion that no legal objection can be raised to the answers to question Nos. 4 and 5. The Plaintiffs in effect have stated that they would not be able to answer those questions as they did not have the relevant and required documents in their possession. Their answers imply that they were not able to furnish information about those questions as they did not have the knowledge or information about the details which were required to be furnished by those questions. As the Plaintiffs take that stand they cannot be compelled to give further answer to these questions on the petitions under Rules 1, 4 and 11 of Order 11, Code of Civil Procedure. 2B. To question No. 6 which as follows: The Plaintiffs in para 3 of the plaint say that the plaint 'Kha' schedule properties are the balance acquired properties of Upendra after other properties transferred. So the Plaintiffs are to say which are the other properties transferred by Upendra, to whom, by what kind of document with the dates of registration. 2B. To question No. 6 which as follows: The Plaintiffs in para 3 of the plaint say that the plaint 'Kha' schedule properties are the balance acquired properties of Upendra after other properties transferred. So the Plaintiffs are to say which are the other properties transferred by Upendra, to whom, by what kind of document with the dates of registration. the answer is: That in answer to question No. 6 it is stated by these Plaintiffs that late Upendra has transferred his acquired properties only to (1) Krushnaprasad Misra, (2) Bishnu Prasad Mishra, (3) Manoranjan Misra and (4) Prahallad Mishra. Late Upendra Mishra has not transferred any other properties to any other person. The properties referred to in this question are the plaint schedule properties. The Court below finds fault with the Plaintiffs for not giving the dates of those transfers and the nature of the documents under which those properties were transferred. The Plaintiffs of course in answering the said questions have not stated that they do not possess the details of the said transfers or the documents in respect of the same. Accordingly, it can be said that the answer to that part of the question is evasive. So that question has not been properly answered. The Plaintiffs are, therefore, required to give proper and further answer to that part of the question, but they cannot now be compelled to give description of any document or to produce any document for inspection in respect of the said transfers, as that's not required to be done on a petition under Rules 1, 4 and 11 of Order 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The provision for discovery on oath of documents or production or inspection of documents is made in Rules 12 to 21 of Order 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The petitions in this case were made by Defendant No. 1 under Rules 1, 4 and 11 of Order 11, CPC as expressly mentioned in those petitions. Accordingly, the party asking the questions cannot complain, or the Court cannot find fault with the Plaintiffs, if discovery or production of documents is not given while answering the said questions. 3. The petitions in this case were made by Defendant No. 1 under Rules 1, 4 and 11 of Order 11, CPC as expressly mentioned in those petitions. Accordingly, the party asking the questions cannot complain, or the Court cannot find fault with the Plaintiffs, if discovery or production of documents is not given while answering the said questions. 3. On the above discussions and considerations, the petition under Rule 11 of Order 11, CPC is allowed so far as it relates to question No. 6 as specifically mentioned above, and the same is rejected in respect of the other questions. The order of the Court below directing answers to the question Nos. 2, 4 and 5 is set aside and its direction so far as regards question No. 6 stand modified as mentioned above. The revision is partly allowed. No costs. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately. Final Result : Allowed