JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - The Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 241 of 1984 in the, court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack is the Petitioner in this revision. In the suit the Plaintiff claimed partition of the suit property against the Defendants. Defendant No. 1 is the mother, Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are brothers and Defendants No. 6 is the sister. Defendant Nos. 2 and 6 filed their joint written statement in the case and rest of the Defendants filed their individual written statements. The main plea taken by the Defendant in the; written a statement was that, the father of the Plaintiff who is now dead and executed a document dated 30-11-1966 which the Defendants treated as deed of partition and urged that pursuant to this deed which was agreed upon amongst the parties, the Plaintiff had been given the possession of a piece of land measuring 5' in width and 5' in breadth. In view, of this earlier partition, there was ho question of any further partition of the property's claimed by the Plaintiff. The father of the Plaintiff admittedly died on 25th of February, 1967. According to the Defendants the validity of the document dated 30-11-1966 which is also now challenged by the Plaintiff is hit by res judicata as in T.S, 72 of 1967 between the parties the document was held to be valid. In the alternative the Defendants claimed that they acquired title to the land by way of adverse possession being in possession of the land for more than the statutory period adverse to the interest of the Plaintiff. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff had' filed an application under Order 11, Rule 1, CPC for leave of the court to deliver interrogatories to Defendant Nos. 2 and 6 with direction to answer them within a period of 10 days from the date of notice of the interrogatories, which are as it follows: 1. When did the Defendants deliver possession of an extent of land of 5' length and 5' breadth to the Plaintiff as alleged in paragraph-56 of their written statement. 2. To give particulars of the land such as Khata number and plot number and boundaries of the area 5' length and 5' breadth alleged to have been delivered to the Plaintiff as alleged in paragraph-16 of the written statement. 3. 2. To give particulars of the land such as Khata number and plot number and boundaries of the area 5' length and 5' breadth alleged to have been delivered to the Plaintiff as alleged in paragraph-16 of the written statement. 3. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Plaintiff had asserted in the plaint that this deed was not acted upon and he was not given possession of any parcel of land. The deed was obtained by the Defendants exercising undue influence over the father and is wrongly described as deed pf partition. According to the Plaintiff this document had not been acted upon. In the written statement, however, the Defendants asserted in paragraph-16 that the extent of land 5'x 5' was given to the Plaintiff as per the desire of Abdul Raheman, the deceased father and the Plaintiff had deserved the benefit under the said deed. As such, whether a definite parcel of land delivered to the Plaintiff in pursuance of the said deed dated 30-11-1966, is an essential and relevant fact for the just determination of case. Order 11, Rule, CPC reads as follows: Order 11, Rule 1 : Discovery by interrogatories: In any suit the Plaintiff or Defendant by leave of the court may deliver interrogators in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer; Provided that no party shall deliver mare than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose : Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any mutter in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross examination of a witness. 4. In a case reported in Jamaitrai Bishansarup Vs. Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria, the court held as follows: In accordance with the general rules as to discovery, interrogatories may not extent to the evidence where with the opposite party intends to support his case at the trial, or to the contents of his opponent's brief or to the names of his witnesses or to the facts which merely support the case of the party interrogated. Interrogatories must be confined to matters which are in issue or sufficiently material at the particular stage of the action at which they are sought to be delivered, or to the relief claimed including the amount of the damages, and as a general rule, perhaps to matters which are relevant to the facts directly in issue, but under some circumstances they may extend to the facts the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the existence or non-existence of the facts directly in issue. Interrogatories should be confined to obtaining from the party interrogated admissions of facts which it is necessary for the party interrogating to prove in order to establish his case. xx xx xx xx It is not a good objection to allowing interrogatories, that the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question since one legitimate purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admission. In other case reported in AIR 1934 181 (Nagpur) the court said thus: Under Order 11, Rule 2, leave shall be. given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the court considers necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. In a decision of this Court reported in ( Ganga Devi Vs. Krushna Prasad Sharma this Court held as follows: xx xx xx. The questions are not fishing and are directly relevant to matters in issue the answers to the interrogatories will shorten the trial and may also show that the defence set up is unfounded. These interrogatories come within the purview of the rule enunciated above and must be allowed, xx xx xx. In this cue (Ganga Devi v. Rmhna Prasad Sharma), the positive case of the Plaintiff was that hit income is about Rs. 100/- per month. Interrogatories 2 to 6 were directed to get information and admission from the Plaintiff with regard to the income of the firm and the quantum of Plaintiff?s interest therein. A similar view was also taken by the Patna High Court in a cage ( Thakur Prasad Vs. Md. Sohayal and Others wherein the court held that: xx xx. Interrogatories 2 to 6 were directed to get information and admission from the Plaintiff with regard to the income of the firm and the quantum of Plaintiff?s interest therein. A similar view was also taken by the Patna High Court in a cage ( Thakur Prasad Vs. Md. Sohayal and Others wherein the court held that: xx xx. The right of making discovery and inspection is given under Order XI of the Civil P.C. The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and time by enabling a party to obtain from his opponent information as to facts material to the questions in dispute between them and to obtain admissions of any facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between them. An admission of the adversary will serve to maintain the case of the party administering the interrogatory or the answer might t>e destructive of his own case. In ( Raj Narain Vs. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Another. The Supreme Court held thus: Question that may be relevant during cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to any matter in question. The interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with matters in question, xx xx xx. 5. In the present case the questions that above been sought to be administered to the Defendants 2 and 6 to answer obviously are questions which are relevant because it relates to the matters in question and closely connected with them. Both the parties are in issue as to whether the document of 1966 was acted upon. The answers to the interrogatories may have the effect of demolishing the Plaintiff?s case or may show that the defence set up was unfounded, and thereby will shorten the scope of the trial. The trial court was, therefore, wrong in refusing the prayer for the administration of interrogatories to the Defendants 2 and 6. I, therefore, quash the impugned order dated 4-9-1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack in Title suit No. 241 of 1984 and allow the Plaintiff to deliver the interrogatories to the Defendants 2 and 6 who will answer them within a period of 10 days (Ten days) from the date of notice of the interrogatories served on them. 6. 6. The suit being of the year 1984, the trial court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from to-day. 7. The civil revision is accordingly, allowed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed