Judgment :- Revision Petitioners are the defendants in a suit for realisation of money. Respondent Bank filed O.S.168 of 1989 before Sub Court, North Paravur for realisation of amounts due as per a term loan advanced by the bank for purchase of a Ford Truck manufactured by M/s Simpson & Co., Madras. A petition was filed by defendants as LA. 693/91 seeking permission to serve interrogatories. The Bank filed LA. 873/91 to set aside the interrogatories. By order dt.31-10-1992 the court below directed the respondent to furnish answers to the interrogatories. A verified statement is alleged to have been filed by the Branch Manager of the Bank purporting to be the answers to the interrogatories. Alleging that the answers to some of the questions are evasive and incomplete, revision petitioners moved the court below by I.A.5101/92 under R.21 of O.11 C.P.C. to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent who inter alia contended that R.21 of O.11 can be invoked only if the party has failed to comply with the order to answer interrogatories. It was stated that the questions themselves were evasive and incapable of being answered except in the manner answered by the respondent. 2. After hearing both sides the court below dismissed the petition observing that the remedy of petitioners is to seek relief under R.11 of O.11 if they take the stand that the answers are insufficient or that further answers are necessary. That order is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard counsel. 4. Rule 21 of O.11 is a stringent provision enabling the party interrogating to apply to the court. to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution if the party failing to comply with any order to answer interrogatories is the plaintiff or to have the defence struck out if he is the defendant. By sub-rule (2) to this rule introduced by the amendment of 1976 the plaintiff 'whose suit has been dismissed under sub-rule (1) of R.21 shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. In view of the drastic consequence due to the dismissal of the suit under R.21, an order to dismiss the suit or to strike out the defence should not be made unless the default has been wilful. In other words, such an order should only be made as a last resort. 5. In view of the drastic consequence due to the dismissal of the suit under R.21, an order to dismiss the suit or to strike out the defence should not be made unless the default has been wilful. In other words, such an order should only be made as a last resort. 5. The procedure to be followed in the matter on discovery by interrogatories is contained in Order 11 C.P.C. R. I enables the plaintiff or the defendant in a suit to serve interrogatories on the opposite party with leave of court. The particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered are to be submitted to the court. Objection can be taken in answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit. Objection can also be taken to answer any interrogatory on the ground of privilege or that the matters enquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage. It is also open to the opposite party to set aside the interrogatory on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatious ly. The interrogatories can be struck out on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous. The answers to the interrogatories are to be filed by an affidavit. R.10 provides that no exception shall be taken to any affidavit in answer, but the sufficiency or otherwise of any such affidavit objected to as insufficient shall be determined by the court. The consideration of the sufficiency or otherwise of the answers given to the interrogatories can be considered by the court on an application presented under R.11 That rule enables the court to make an order requiring the party to answer further cither by affidavit or by viva voce examination, as the court may direct. The consequence of the non-compliance with the order to answer interrogatories is provided in R.21 referred earlier. 6. The main aspect to be considered is whether mere failure by a party to comply with an order to answer interrogatories will enable the court to have the suit dismissed or the defence struck out or whether there should be wilful default on the part of the opposite party to answer interrogatories. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider this aspect in Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. TirlokNath (AIR 1978 SC 1436). The Supreme Court had occasion to consider this aspect in Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. TirlokNath (AIR 1978 SC 1436). It was held that an order striking out the defence under 0.11 R.21 should not be made unless there has been obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the defendant or wilful attempt to disregard the order of the court to produce the documents. In that case the 'direction was to produce documents. The principle applies to the case of answer to interrogatories also. The Supreme Court observed that a suit cannot be lightly thrown out or a defence struck out without adequate reasons even assuming that in certain circumstances the provisions of O.11 R.21 C.P.C. must be strictly enforced. The Supreme Court is of the view that the power for dismissal of a suit or striking out of the defence under 0.] 1 R.21 should be exercised only where the defaulting paty fails to attend the hearing or is guilty of the prolonged or inordinate and inexcusable delay which may cause substantial or serious prejudice to the opposite party. It was held that the principle governing the courts exercise of its discretion under 0.11 R.21 is that it is only when the default is wilful and as a last resort that the court should dismiss the suit or strike out the defence, when the party is guilty of such contumacious conduct or there is a wilful attempt to disregard the order of the court that the trial of the suit is arrested. The position therefore is that before invoking R.21 for dismissal of the suit or for striking out the defence, the court has to ascertain whether the party was guilty of contumacious conduct or whether there was wilful attempt on his part to disregard the order of the court. 7. The Lahore High Court in Allahabad Bank v. GanpatRai (AIR 1929 Lah. 750) held that the stringent provisions of 011 R.21 should be applied only in extreme cases and referred to the following observation in Jaisukh v. Dinanath (1898) 58 P.R.1898 that the rule "requires to be worked with caution and should be made use of only as a last resort. The practice of the English Courts is, and it is always proper, to make the order a conditional one and to grant a little further time for compliance". The practice of the English Courts is, and it is always proper, to make the order a conditional one and to grant a little further time for compliance". There are two stages in which the application for answering interrogatories proceeds. The first stage is the presentation of the interrogatories with the leave of the court and the serving of the same on the opposite party. The other party may or may not comply with the request to answer the interrogatories. On failure to answer interrogatories, the party interrogating has a right to apply under R.11 for a direction to require the opposite party to answer further. It is under that rule that the court decides whether the party must answer or not and thereafter passes an order directing the party to answer. It is only thereafter the question arises whether the failure should be punished and the order enforced by invoking the provision of R.21. In other words, R.21 can be invoked by a party only if the opposite party has failed to answer the interrogatories further or to answer fully the interrogatories in pursuance to an order under R.11 of O.11. 8. In the view that I have taken I am supported by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in RamapatSaran v. Habib Ullah Klian (AIR 1926 All. 553). A Division Bench of the Court held that an order under R.21 can be passed only when there is a previous order under R.11 requiring a party to answer interrogatories and there is a failure on the part of the party requiring to answer. 9. In the present case revision petitioners-defendants had not moved the court below under R.11 or O.11. After the respondent submitted his answers, petitioners straight away applied under R.21 to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution. This, they cannot do without requesting the court by an application under R.11 to answer further pointing out the omission in the answers or the insufficiency of the answers. The court below was therefore right in rejecting the request made for dismissal of the suit under R.21 or O.11. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by the court requiring interference in revision. 10. The court below was therefore right in rejecting the request made for dismissal of the suit under R.21 or O.11. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by the court requiring interference in revision. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners sought permission to move the court below under R.11 of O.11.An observation is seen made in the impugned order that petitioners may seek relief under R.11 in case the answers are found to be insufficient or further answers are found to be necessary. A permission by this court is therefore not necessary to enable the revision petitioners to move the court below for the relief under R.11 of O.11. For the aforesaid reasons the revision is found to be devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed, but without costs.