JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order Dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12844 of 2008 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the Judgment and order of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 14.08.2008 passed in CM.A. No. 23 of 2008 (arising out of C.S. No. 47 of 2008) rejecting the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Order 11, Rule 1, read with Section 151 of the CPC (hereinafter called 'the C.P.C.'). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Respondent No. 1 filed a suit being C.S. No. 47 of 2008 in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. seeking interim relief. During the pendency of the said application, Respondent No. 1 filed another application under Order 11, Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking leave to deliver interrogatories in respect to Hal Khata No. 7, corresponding to Sabik Plot Numbers of the suit property i.e. Plot Nos. 302, 206 and 305 (p) if riot Plot Nos. 465, 466, 467, 468 and 469 and asking as to what was the basis of the preparation of Hal Khata No. 7 during major settlement operation, whether by family arrangement or by Registered Partition deed along with other interrogatories. The vendors and vendee were asked to answer the interrogatories 1 and 2 and Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 3, who is the father of Respondent No. 1, were directed to reply the interrogatories 3 to 5. To the said application, objection was filed that it was not maintainable contending specifically that the defendants in the suit did not dispute the identification of the Scheduled property. As the said application remained pending consideration before the Civil Court, Writ Petition No. 7828 of 2008 was filed before this Court and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the civil Court to decide the same expeditiously. As the said application remained pending consideration before the Civil Court, Writ Petition No. 7828 of 2008 was filed before this Court and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the civil Court to decide the same expeditiously. In pursuance thereof, the case was decided and Learned civil Court came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable as the application under Order 11, Rule 1 C.P.C. is applicable only while deciding the suit or the proceedings of original nature but not in any other proceedings like Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Being aggrieved the Respondent No. 1 filed the Writ Petition before this Court challenging the said Judgment and order. The Learned Single Judge vide impugned Judgment and order allowed the said Writ Petition and the Order Dated 14.8.2008 impugned therein, passed by the Learned Civil Court had been set aside and the Writ Petitioner was directed to deliver the interrogatories to the Opposite Parties regarding the number of Sabik Plot in question and the Trial Court was directed to fix the time to answer the said interrogatories. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Sanjit Mohanty, Learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that application under Order 11, Rule 1 applies to the suit or proceedings of original nature like probate, divorce etc. but not in any other proceedings arising during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge has committed a error in allowed the Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand Shri R.K. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents has placed a very heavy reliance upon the provisions of Section 141 C.P.C. which makes the C.P.C. applicable in other proceedings also and it is submitted that Learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition. The said Judgment does not require any interference whatsoever and thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Provisions of Section 141 C.P.C. reads as under: 141. Miscellaneous proceedings - the procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. 7. Undoubtedly, this provisions of Section 141 were amended vide amendment Act of 1976 by adding the explanation thereto. Miscellaneous proceedings - the procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. 7. Undoubtedly, this provisions of Section 141 were amended vide amendment Act of 1976 by adding the explanation thereto. From the explanation, two things are clear that the C.P.C. does not apply to the writ jurisdiction and it would apply to other proceedings including the application under Order IX C.P.C. Reference to the provision of Order IX C.P.C. is not exhaustive, rather it is merely illustrative and clarificatory. . The Legislature brought the amendment to Section 141 CPC as there had been contradictory opinions by the High Courts. Notice of said contradictory Judgments has been taken by the Apex Court in Puran Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others. In the said Judgment, the question arose as to whether the provisions of the C.P.C. applies to writ jurisdiction. It is worth taking note of the fact that while deciding the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance upon its earlier Judgment in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and Others wherein it was observed as under: Section 141 of the Code, to which reference has been made, makes it clear that the provisions of the Code in regard to suits shall be followed in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction as far as it can be made applicable. The Words "as far as it can be made applicable" make it clear that, in applying the various provisions of the Code to proceedings other than those of a suit, the Court must take into account the nature of those proceedings and the relief sought. 8. However, this Judgment is also prior to the amendment in the provisions of Section 141 C.P.C. More so, it does not provide that the application under Order 11, Role 1 would not be applicable in the proceedings other than suit. 9. In Ramchandra Aggarwal and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another the Apex Court considered the scope of provisions of Section 141 C.P.C. in a case arising out of reference u/s 146 Cr. 9. In Ramchandra Aggarwal and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another the Apex Court considered the scope of provisions of Section 141 C.P.C. in a case arising out of reference u/s 146 Cr. P.C. as application u/s 24 C.P.C. had been filed to transfer the proceedings u/s 146(1) Cr.P.C. After considering the scope of the provisions of Section 141 C.P.C, the Court came to the following conclusion: that the expression "civil proceeding" in Section 141 is not necessarily confined to an original proceeding like a suit or an application for appointment of a guardian etc., but that it applies also to a proceeding which is not an original proceeding. 10. In Rathindra Nath Bose Vs. Jyoti Bikash Ghosh and Others the Learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court considered this aspect in different context where an application u/s 94 read with Section 151 C.P.C. had been filed and interim injunction was issued restraining the landlord from executing the decree till the disposal of the application under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C. and came to the conclusion that proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction as contemplated by Section 141 covers only "original matters" like probates, guardianships, divorce, insolvency and so forth. This provisions includes original matters which originate in themselves and not those which spring up from a suit or from other proceeding or arise in connection therewith. A proceeding under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C. is not such a proceeding within the meaning of Section 141. 11. The said Judgment is not of any relevance as it had been decided prior to the amendment of Section 141 C.P.C. in 1976 and more so by adding explanation as it was specifically clarified that provisions of CPC would apply while deciding the application under Order 9 CPC. 12. In Mst. Nurnahar Bewa and Another Vs. Rabindra Nath Dev and Others the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court considered the same issue and held as under: ...It, however, appears to us that the 'proceedings' referred to in Section 141 of the Civil P.C. are not confined to only original proceedings. The Supreme Court Ramchandra Aggarwal and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, indicated that "proceedings" u/s 141 are of wider amplitude. The Supreme Court Ramchandra Aggarwal and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, indicated that "proceedings" u/s 141 are of wider amplitude. It also appears to us that the conflict as to whether or not a proceeding under Order 9 will be miscellaneous proceeding as contemplated in Section 141 of the Civil P.C. has now been set at rest by the Amendment Act of 1976...whatever may be the nature of proceedings initiated under Order 9 C.P.C., said proceedings are to be treated as miscellaneous proceedings within the meaning of Section 141 C.P.C. as amended.... 13. In B.S. Adityan and Ors. v. R. Kannan Adityan and Anr. AIR 1983 Mad. 334 , the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that Section 141 C.P.C. applies to all proceedings under the C.P.C. The Court further placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Aggarwal (supra) and observed as under: whatever doubt there might have prior to the above decision, it is now settled by the above decision that the words 'civil proceedings' in Section 141, are not necessarily confined to an original proceeding like a suit or application for appointment of guardian etc. But applies to all proceedings which are not original proceedings. 14. In Shakoor and etc. Vs. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and etc., the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Aggarwal (supra) was considered and the Court held that the proceedings referred to Section 141 C.P.C. included all "miscellaneous applications" and is not restricted only to original proceedings. The Court further declared that its earlier Judgment in Abdul Sattar and Another Vs. Jankivallabh and Another, wherein it was held that Section 141 was meant to include only original matters in the nature of suits viz; matters which originate themselves and not those which spring up from a suit or some other proceeding or arising in connection therewith, was no longer a good law in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Aggarwal (supra). 15. Similar view has been reiterated by the Rajasthan High Court in Ravindra Bal Niketan Samiti, Sikar and Others Vs. 15. Similar view has been reiterated by the Rajasthan High Court in Ravindra Bal Niketan Samiti, Sikar and Others Vs. Smt. Sushila Shrivastava and Another, While deciding the said case, the Court also taken into consideration the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Rathindra Nath Bose (supra) and observed that after the amendment in Section 141 C.P.C. the law laid down therein was no more a good law. 16. In view of the above, it is evident that the provisions of the CPC are applicable as far as possible to all proceedings and for that purpose application under Order 11 Rule 1 cannot be an exception. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. The main object of interrogatories is to save expense by enabling a party to obtain from his opponent information as to facts material to the question in dispute between them and to obtain admissions of any facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between them. (vide Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sohayal and Ors. AIR 1977 Pat. 233 and Ganesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Orissa. The questions 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". However, the interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with "matters in question", (vide Raj Narain Vs. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Another, ). 18. Therefore, interrogatories sought to be served may be permitted if they are relating to and relevant to matters in question having reasonable close connection. Mere fact that those facts can be proved by other evidence is no ground for refusing permission to serve interrogatories. The Court has to determine as to whether the applicant should be allowed to interrogate the other side, but not to determine at this stage as what questions the party interrogated should be compelled to answer. An application for leave should be made like other applications. The Court can refuse exercising its discretion, if it comes to the conclusion that it was not necessary for disposing of fairly the action or for saving costs. 19. An application for leave should be made like other applications. The Court can refuse exercising its discretion, if it comes to the conclusion that it was not necessary for disposing of fairly the action or for saving costs. 19. In view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, undoubtedly while filing reply under Order 11 Rule 1 C.P.C., present Appellant has submitted that the there is no dispute with regard to identification of the Schedule property, however necessity of filing such application arose that in the earlier case by the present Appellant in W.P.(C) No. 7828 of 2008, which was decided by Judgment and Order Dated 6.8.2008 the Counsel for the present Appellant had given an undertaking not to carry out any construction over the schedule land till the final order was passed by the Trial Court, and during the pendency of the application for interim relief before the Trial Court, the undertaking was not honoured and started raising construction and when contempt proceedings were initiated different pleas had been taken. In such a fact situation, we do not think that the interrogatories filed are irrelevant and are not necessary to decide the application. Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 20. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed