Judgment :- 1. In proceedings in execution the judgment-debtor claimed protection of the provisions of Ordinance 9 of 1977. Thereupon the decree-holder served; certain interrogatories on the judgment-debtor. Overruling the objection of the judgment-debtor that no interrogatory could be served in execution proceedings on the opposite party, that court directed the judgment-debtor to answer the interrogatories. The judgment-debtor has come up in revision. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether interrogatory could be served in execution proceedings and whether the opposite party on whom interrogatories are served could be directed to answer the same. 2. Reliance was placed on behalf of the judgment-debtor, revision petitioner, on Rule I of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to discovery by interrogatories where reference only to suit and not to execution proceedings is made. Before the lower court also the same contention was raised.That court took the view that the suit does not terminate by judgment and decree and it terminates only when the fruits of the decree are realised and the execution proceedings have come to an end. This may be one approach, but I do not propose to rest my decision on that. 3. S.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers jurisdiction on the court to make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to (among others) the delivery and answering of interrogatories at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any party. This power is wide enough to make the court competent to direct any party to answer interrogatories at any time before the suit is decreed, and after the suit is decreed in execution proceedings. The section aforesaid appears to follow the English procedure which enables the court to order discovery in any 'cause' or 'matter' in the Supreme Court to which the rules of the Supreme Court apply. This aspect has been adverted to by our Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur (AIR 1972 SC 2379). It should in this connection be noticed that interrogatories are usually served on the opposite party to facilitate the proof of his own case and "administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged as it is a means of getting admissions and tends to shorten litigation". See Mulla's commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure, Thirteenth Edition, Vol. It should in this connection be noticed that interrogatories are usually served on the opposite party to facilitate the proof of his own case and "administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged as it is a means of getting admissions and tends to shorten litigation". See Mulla's commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure, Thirteenth Edition, Vol. I at page 829. 4. At any rate I am not prepared to say that the execution court has no jurisdiction to direct the opposite party on whom the interrogatories have been served to answer the same. This jurisdiction is vested in a court under S.30 of the Code as already pointed out, be it that court is trying a suit or executing a decree. In view of what is stated above there is no merit in this civil revision petition. The same is dismissed. There will be no order as regards costs. Dismissed. CMP. No. 8776 of 1980 in CRP. 302/1978-A I disposed of CRP. No. 302 of 1978 dismissing the same. The revision petition was against an order passed by the execution court allowing the decree-holder's application to serve certain interrogatories on the judgment-debtor. It was pointed out by the decision in the aforesaid revision petition that under S.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the court has jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to (among others) the delivery and answering of interrogatories at any time, either on its own motion or on the application of any party. It was further pointed out that the execution court has therefore power and jurisdiction to pass orders as regards answering of interrogatories, though Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as such may not be attracted to proceedings in execution, in so far as that order confers power as regards discovery and inspection "in any suit". 2. The decision aforesaid was on merits and not one for default of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned counsel was not heard in the matter and he has come up with this C. M. P. pointing out that he was not heard and that he may be heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on two decisions, one of the Supreme Court, D. Bhushayya v. K. Ramakrishnayya (AIR. 1962 SC. However, the learned counsel was not heard in the matter and he has come up with this C. M. P. pointing out that he was not heard and that he may be heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on two decisions, one of the Supreme Court, D. Bhushayya v. K. Ramakrishnayya (AIR. 1962 SC. 1886) and the other of the Madras High Court, Alagesundaram Pillai v. Pichuvier (AIR 1929 Madras 757) submits that S.141 of the Code is not attracted to execution proceedings and that therefore the provisions in Order XI of the Code are not attracted to the execution proceedings. The decision in the revision proceeds not on the basis of S.141 or of the provisions in Order XI of the Code, but on S.30. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that but for the provisions in Order XI of the Code discovery and inspection cannot be ordered and that the provisions in Order XI apply only to suits. I am afraid that the submission aforesaid is not right. In Ram Sewak v. H. K. Kidwai (AIR. 1964 SC. 1249) the Supreme Court says that the "Tribunal has undoubtedly the power to direct discovery and inspection of documents with which the civil court is invested under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit". This power is conferred by S.30 of the Code, which enables the Court to pass the orders made mention of in that section "at any time". In view of what is stated above I see no reason to rehear the revision petition. Dismissed.