JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision against an order refusing leave to him by the trial court to serve interrogatories on the defendant for his answer. In spite of valid service of notice the defendant opposite party has not appeared in this case. 2. Plaintiff's suit is one for recovery of Rs. 2,106/ - as damages. Defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff. After the issues were settled, the plaintiff applied to the court under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC, for leave to deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the defendant. The application was objected to by the defendant on various grounds except those on which objection can be raised Under Order 11 Rule 6 CPC. In other words, no challenge was made that the interrogatories sought to be answered are either scandalous or irrelevant or do not exhibit bona fides for the purpose of the suit, or that the mattes inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage. The trial court was required under Rule 2 of Order 11 CPC to consider whether it would be necessary for disposing the suit fairly for saving costs on the short ground that the answers to the interrogatories are found in the written statement and no useful purpose would be served. 3. Reading the entire Order 11, it cannot be said that availability of answer in the written statement would be a ground to refuse leave for service of the interrogatories in Mahesh Prasad Bharat v. Messers. Rao and Sons and Ors. (1964) 6 OJD 53, this Court held that the answer in the written statement would not justify the refusal. It was observed: The second reason given by the learned Munsif that the answers to the interrogatories could be found from the written statement of the contesting defendants is besides the point. In the written statement there was a bald and categorical denial. The plaintiff purports to establish further admissions or denials from defendants 1 to 5 as to if the specific particulars given in the interrogatories are true or not. If defendants 1 to 5 give admissions, the plaintiff would not be called upon to establish the same evidence. If the defendants deny, the plaintiff will try to make out such a case either through his own evidence or by cross-examination. If defendants 1 to 5 give admissions, the plaintiff would not be called upon to establish the same evidence. If the defendants deny, the plaintiff will try to make out such a case either through his own evidence or by cross-examination. In any view of the matter, the reason given by the learned Munsif that the answers are to be found in the written statement is unsound. 4. The purpose of interrogatory has been well reflected in the decision of the English Court in Attorney General v. Gaskil (1882) 20 Ch.D. 519, where Cotton, LJ. observed, The right to discovery remains the same, that is to say, a party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent everything which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. It was said in argument that it is not discovery there the plaintiff himself already knows the fact. But that is a mere play on the word discovery. Discovery is not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge of that which he does not know, but includes the getting an admission of anything which he is to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the defendant. To show that therefore interrogatories should not be allowed is another fallacy. The object of the pleadings is to ascertain what issues are. The object of the interrogatories is not to learn what the issues are but to see whether the party intelligently makes the burden of proof easier than to it otherwise would have been. The above passage has been relied upon by this Court in a decision reported in Ganga Devi v. Krushna Prasad Sharma ILR 1964 Cut. 958. The principle of English law relating to interrogatories is also applicable to the Indian Law as has been clearly observed in a decision reported in the Indian Law as has been clearly observed in a decision reported in Baijnath Kedia Vs. Raghunath Prasad, While considering an election appeal, the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Raj Narain Vs. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Another held that the main question for consideration while granting leave to serve interrogatory is that the interrogatory served must have reasonably close connection with matters in question. Raghunath Prasad, While considering an election appeal, the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Raj Narain Vs. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Another held that the main question for consideration while granting leave to serve interrogatory is that the interrogatory served must have reasonably close connection with matters in question. There cannot be any doubt that the purpose of serving interrogatory is to have a fair trial and to reduce the cost of litigation by getting admission from the party in whom the interrogatory is served. 5. In that view of the matter denial to answer the questions is seriously viewed by the Legislature by providing in Order 11 Rule 1 CPC that in case of plaintiff the suit would be dismissed and no fresh suit would lie and in case of defendant the defence would be struck off. Keeping the principles of the aforesaid decisions and the legislature intention, the trial court ought to have considered whether the interrogatories would held the fair trial and would save the cost of litigation which are the two material considerations for granting leave, apart from the objections as indicated in Rule 6 of Order 11 CPC, which have not been raised in this case. Availability of the answer in the written statement is not a ground to refuse the leave and the refusal as in this case is, therefore, based on extraneous considerations. 6. In the result, the order is set aside and the trial court is directed to consider whether the interrogatories would be to advance a fair-trial or to reduce the cost of litigation as provided under Order 11, Rule 1 CPC. As the opposite party has not entered appearance in this Civil Revision, I make no order as to costs.