K. Ramamoorthy,j. ( 1 ) THE fourth defendant has filed the above petition under Order 11 for serving interrogatories on the third defendant and also production of few of the documents mentioned in the petition. This petition is filed after the parties have closed their evidence and the case was adjourned for arguments by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) JUST to appreciate the case of the parties, a few of the facts may be noticed without entering into, in detail the relevant contentions of the parties in the suit. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff (M/s. Nabha Investment Private Limited) filed a suit against three defendants originally. Subsequently, the fourth defendant Unit Trust of India was made a party to this suit. The plaintiff subsequently filed ended plaint. In paragraph 22 (f), the plaintiff stated that the second defendant State Bank of India cannot enter into any lawful transaction for transfer of the shares involved in the case in favour of the fourth defendant. It is further asserted that the plaintiff had never given any right to any of the defendants to have the shares transferred as owners thereof and the transaction made by the second defendant was void ab initio and consequently all the subsequent transactions are void and are not enforceable against the plaintiff. In the amended plaint, the following reliefs are prayed for by the plaintiff:- (A) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute onwer of 86469 shares along with bonus shares of M/s. HMM Ltd. , the details of which are mentioned in the Annexure III attached with the plaint and are entitled to deal with them in any manner desired by it; (B) for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 and 4 from transferring 86469 equity shares and bonus shares either in their name or in the names of their nominees; (C) the decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants No. l, 2 and 4 to return the 86469 equity shares and bonus shares along with the blank transfer forms to the plaintiff. (D) the defendants No. 1 and 2 be directed to render accounts in respect of the divident received by them on the aforesaid shares; (E) defendant No. 3 be refrained permanently from affecting transfer of the said 86469 equityshares and bonus shares of M/s. HMM Ltd. detailed in Annexure III of the plaint in the name of defendants No. l, 2 and 4 or any of their nominees; (F) that defendant No. 3 be directed to pay all the dividends on 86469 equity shares and bonus shares to the plaintiff; (G) costs of this Suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants No. 1 and 2; (H) any other relief to which the plaintiff may be considered entitled under the circumstances of the case, may be granted to the plaintiff and against the defendants. ( 4 ) I do not want to refer to the averments in the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2 except stating that they refuted the claim of the plaintiff and stated that whatever they had done was in accordance with law. ( 5 ) FOURTH defendant filed a separate written statement contending, inter alia, that this court should declare that fourth defendant is the absolute owner of 86. 469 equity shares and the fourth defendant is the rightful claimant to the bonus shares and the divident declared on these shares. ( 6 ) IT is significant to notice that the third defendant M/s. H. M. M. Limited has not filed any written statement. ( 7 ) THE plaintiff examined an officer of the third defendant and produced some records from the third defendant. I may also note that the fourth defendant served a notice on the third defendant for production of a few documents and the third defendant had sent a reply producing a lew documents and giving a suitable reply to the notice given by the fourth defendant. ( 8 ) THE question whether the plaintiff is the owner of the shares and whether the fourth defendant is the owner of the shares have to be considered by this court in this suit. ( 9 ) AS already pointed out at this stage the fourth defendant has filed this petition against the third defendant to answer interrogatories. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff and the third defendant contested the petition. ( 9 ) AS already pointed out at this stage the fourth defendant has filed this petition against the third defendant to answer interrogatories. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff and the third defendant contested the petition. Their main submission is that the fourth defendant cannot file such an application against the third defendant who is not an opposite parly to the fourth defendanl and the petitioner is guilty of latches of the petition is very much belated. ( 11 ) THE principle whether interrogatories can be served to a person who is not contesting the suit by a co-defendant has been subject matter of decisions since 1887. In SHAW v. SMITH AND OTHERS. (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 193. the Court of Appeal in England took the view that interrogatories cannot be served to a person who cannot be called an opposite party. Lord Esher held : "so. as it appears to me: there are not any rights to be adjusted in the action between Smith and the other defendants. There cannot therefore be any question as between them to which the inspection ordered can be material. Therefore, reading the rule in accordance with the decision in Brown v. Watkins (1), as I have explained it. I do not think it gives the Court any jurisdiction to make this order as between the defendant Smith and the other defendants. The mere accident of their both being defendants in the same action does not, in my opinion, give that jurisdiction, where there is no right to be adjusted in the action as between them. For these reasons I think this appeal should he allowed, and the order for inspection rescinded. " ( 12 ) LINDLEY Lord Justice observed : "the mere fact that persons are co-defendants does not give the right, as it appears to me in the absence of any community of interest or right to he adjusted between them. " ( 13 ) LOPES L. J. observed : "i agree. I think the Court below has given too wide an interpretation to order L. , r. 3. I do not think they had jurisdiction to make this order. inasmuch as there was no right that had to be adjusted as between Smith and the other defendants in The action. " ( 13 ) LOPES L. J. observed : "i agree. I think the Court below has given too wide an interpretation to order L. , r. 3. I do not think they had jurisdiction to make this order. inasmuch as there was no right that had to be adjusted as between Smith and the other defendants in The action. I am of opinion that there would be a right to discovery of documents or inspection as between parlies who were co-plaintiffs or parties who were co-defendants, where rights had to be adjusted between them in the action. In this case there are, so far as I can make out. no rights to be adjusted between the defendant Smith and the other defendants. With regard to the decision in Brown v. Walkins (1), I agree that the expressions there used may perhaps lead to misap prehension. I think that by "opposite parties" the court must have meant parties between whom some question was in conflict in the action. " ( 14 ) CALCUTTA High Court in GOPALDAS MODI v. HANSRAJ,, AIR 1932 Cal 72, had expressed the view that the words "any party" and "any other party" in Rule 12 contemplate opposite parties within the meaning of Order 11 Rule 1; and in order that the parties may be opposite there must be an issue raised between the parties at the stage when the discovery is demanded. Consequently before a defendant n claim an order for discovery against a co-defendant, or avails of an order for discovery in favour of a plaintiff, there must be an issue raised between the defendants at that stage. ( 15 ) AGAIN in GOBINDA MOHAN ROY v. MAGENRAM BANGUR AND COMPANY, A. I. R. 1940 Calcutta 331, another learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court expressed the view that order for discovery cannot be refused against defendants on the ground it may compel him to produce documents relating solely to his title. This case does not help the parties in this case. ( 16 ) THE Allahabad High Court in RAJ NARAIN v. SMT. This case does not help the parties in this case. ( 16 ) THE Allahabad High Court in RAJ NARAIN v. SMT. INDIRA GANDHIAND OTHERS, AIR 1972 All 41 , a learned single Judge had held that the discovery does not shift the onus which should be on the party taking a particular stand until he may discharge that onus either by producing witnesses or by eliciting admissions from the opposite party and admissions may be elicited either by cross-examination or by discovery. Dispossession cannot be disputed by anybody. ( 17 ) THE Supreme Court in RAJ NARAIN V. SMT. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI AND ANOTHER, AIR 1972 S. C. 1302 had expressed the view that "the only questions that are relevant as interrogatories arc those relating to "any matters in question" and the interrogatories served must have have reasonably close connection with lh (. "matters in question". ( 18 ) IN the instant case, the fourth defendant in my view is trying to get any details from the third defendant which are not very much relevant to the points in controversy. If the fourth defendant feels aggrieved at the conduct of the third defendant, the law permits the fourth defendant to make submissions to the effect that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to get the relief and the fourth defendant can invite this court to draw adverse inferences against the plaintiff or the third defendant depending upon the materials relied on by the fourth defendant. ( 19 ) THE Patna High Court in THAKUR PRASAD v. Md. SOHAYAL AND OTHERS, AIR 1977 Pat 233 , had held that a defendant who is not defendant, the suit at all, cannot be served with interrogatories. ( 20 ) THIS Court in RAJASTHAN GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO. (PVT.) LTD. v. AVON FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ,, AIR 1986 Delhi 286 has held that the main object of delivering interrogatories by a party is to discover facts in order to facilitate the proof of his own case under the power to allow the interrogatories to be administered by one party to another is always subject to the discretion of the Court. ( 21 ) THE Orissa High Court in IANAKI BALLAV PATNAIK v. BENNETT COLEMAN and CO. LTD. ( 21 ) THE Orissa High Court in IANAKI BALLAV PATNAIK v. BENNETT COLEMAN and CO. LTD. AND OTHERS, AIR 1989 Ori 216 , has taken a view that discovery of facts which constitutes exclusively evidence of adversories case is not per- missible in law. In BHAKTA CHARAN MALLIK v. NATAORAR MALLIK AND OTHERS, AIR 1991 Ori 319 the Orissa High Court has taken the view that on the facts of a particular case, the party applying for interrogatories is entitled to an order. ( 22 ) IN KRISHNA AYYAR v. MADHAVA PANIKKAR AND OTHERS, Alr 1921 Madras 381, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had taken the view that interrogatories to ex-parte defendants should not be permitted. The Madras High Court had REFERRED TO to in this behalf, the decision in MARSHALL v. LANGLEY (1) (1889) W. N. (England) 222. ( 23 ) IN the light of the settled position, I do not think that the fourth defendant is justified in seeking to serve interrogatories at this late stage against the third defendant who has not filed any written statement and no issues have been framed for any point to be decided between the third and the fourth defendants. ( 24 ) THE learned counsel for the fourth defendant REFERRED TO to ANANDRA o VTTHAL VARA di v. BUDRA MALLA, PURKHA DHOLLA AND HARIBA TUKA ram VARA di, . L. R. 17 Bombay 384, and that has been mentioned in the. written submissions as ILR 27 Bombay 384. But that reference is not correct. The learned counsel apparently bad in mind. the decision reported in I. L. R. 17 Bombay 384. Mr. Justice Starling in that case held that a defendant may obtain discovery or inspection as against a co-defendant if the latter can be regarded as an opposite party. That is not the position here. In my view, third defendant can not be considered to be an opposite party to the fourth defendant. ( 25 ) THE learned counsel for the fourth defendant submitted that the third defendant is colluding with the plaintiff. That is a matter to be decided at the time of trial of the case and that cannot be a ground assuming to be correct, for the serving of interrogatories on the third defendant. ( 25 ) THE learned counsel for the fourth defendant submitted that the third defendant is colluding with the plaintiff. That is a matter to be decided at the time of trial of the case and that cannot be a ground assuming to be correct, for the serving of interrogatories on the third defendant. ( 26 ) FOR all these reasons, I do not find any justification on the part of the fourth defendant in filing the petition and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 27 ) S. NO. 663/83 Post the suit for arguments on 13th May 1996.