JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Plaintiff-respondent No.1 has filed a suit for possession. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to get the answer of interrogatories from defendant No.1. Vide the impugned order dated 3.1.2011, the application filed by the plaintiff has been partly allowed and defendant No.1 had been directed to give answer to the interrogatories No.1 to 4, 6 and 8. Hence, the present petition by defendant No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application was liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff could produce the certified copies of the relevant orders on record and put questions to defendant No.1 qua the documents in question during cross-examination. 3. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Vs. Kamlesh Rani, 2007(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 602, wherein it was held as under :- “5. I fear that this judgment also does not remotely apply to the present case. It may be noticed that in the present case the petitioner had failed to disclose the relevancy of the interrogatories to the subject matter in dispute as the assertions made in the application were only that the plaintiff required the defendant to answer the interrogatories as enclosed with the application. The application moved by the petitioner, therefore, was prima facie not competent under Order 11 Rule 1 C.P.C.” 4. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Col. A.S. Judge, [2009(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2827] : 2009(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 895, wherein it was held as under :- “10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it could well be observed as under :- 1. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC are meant to be applied by the plaintiff and the defendant could not compel him to produce any document under that provision and non compliance of the Order 7 Rule 14 CPC could entail an inference against him or place obligation upon him to produce such document at a latter stage with the permission of the Court. 2. The provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 are independent to each other. 2. The provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 are independent to each other. No doubt the powers as envisaged under Order 11 Rule 14 are wider then that as mentioned in Rule 12 but before exercise of the power under Order 11 Rule 14, the Court was to exercise its discretion while examining expediency, justness and relevancy of the document to the matter in question. 3. The document required by the Court to be produced under Rule 14 of Order 11 CPC, were required to be produced on oath. On completion of the procedure as provided under rule 15 of the said order. As per practice, permission is obtained on notice under Rule 15 or by order under Rule 18, therefore, the power to order to production of document is coupled with the discretion to examine the expediency, justness and relevancy of the documents to the matter in question.” 5. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of M/s AFL Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Veena Trivedi, 2000 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 233, wherein it was held as under :- “15. In view of the above I am of the considered view that under Order XI Rule 11, CPC, plaintiff No.1 cannot be directed to answer or further answer the interrogatories served on him. The interrogatories are in the nature of fishing enquiry and these questions can at best be asked during the cross-examination, and the same are not relevant to the matters in question.” 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. 7. By filing the application the plaintiff intended to get reply from defendant No.1 of the following interrogatories : “(1) Whether defendant No.1 got reflected a report No.141 dated 24.1.1998 in repot roznamcha regarding the mutation of inheritance of deceased Amrik Singh in the presence of Sukhdev Singh Lamberdar of village Rorki before Halqa Patwari, Sardulgarh and produced death certificate dated 28.8.1997 by affixing her thumb impression below the report in the presence of Lamberdar Sukhdev Singh who has appended his signatures as identifier below the said report and produced copy of order dated 10.3.1998 ? (2) Whether defendant No.1 has mentioned the facts disclosed by her in para No.1 of the written statement in previous suits, written statements, appeals, revisions filed by her in different courts and if so, disclose the Court proceedings in which she has mentioned the said facts ? (3) Whether defendant No.1 filed appeal No. 32/99, 33/99 dated 17.7.1999 in the Court of Commissioner, Faridkot through her counsel Shri Baz Singh Aulakh ? (4) Whether defendant No.1 filed reply/written statement dated 07.12.1999 in file No.20 dated 06.8.1999 which was treated as civil suit No.25 dated 16.12.200 through her counsel Shri R.P. Sharma, Advocate and made statement in the Court on 05.12.2000 and 05.12.2001 in the presence of her counsel Shri R.P. Sharma, Advocate ? (5) Whether Amrik Singh, husband of plaintiff filed written statement dated 24.8.1996 in civil suit file No.28 dated 14.12.1995 through her counsel Shri R.P. Sharma, Advocate in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa ? (6) Whether defendant No.1 filed reply dated 04.10.1999 through her counsel Shri Gurdip Singh Manshahia, in an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa ? (7) Whether Amrik Singh filed reply in file No.2 dated 09.1.1996 through his counsel Shri Babu Singh Mann, Advocate in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mansa ? (8) Whether defendant No.1 filed a criminal revision No.1166 of 2000 in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh through her counsel Shri P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate and filed a criminal Misc. No. 35686 of 2000 in the abovesaid revision petition alongwith a death certificate.” 8. Vide the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to answer the interrogatories No.1 to 4, 6 and 8. A perusal of the said interrogatories reveals that the same relate to earlier litigation in which the petitioner was a party. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be upheld as the plaintiff is merely seeking interrogatories qua earlier litigation and revenue proceedings. Although, the said questions could have been put to petitioner during her cross-examination but the said fact in itself would not be sufficient to dismiss the application. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. 9. No ground for interference is made out. 10. Dismissed. -----------0.K.B.0------------