JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the trial Court on an application filed by the respondent under provisions of Order XI, Rule 1 read with Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code). 3. The respondent is the original plaintiff who has filed proceedings for maintenance under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In said proceedings the respondent filed an application under provisions of Order XI, Rule 1 and Rule 12 of the Code seeking discovery by interrogatories. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply to the interrogatories and provided the information which according to him was within his knowledge. By the impugned order the trial Court held that the petitioner had not given answers to the interrogatories correctly and issued further directions for furnishing information as sought. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Shri A. Shelat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reply submitted to the application moved by the petitioner disclosed all necessary information sought by the respondent. There was no exception taken by the respondent to the information given and therefore the trial Court was not justified in observing that it would draw adverse inference and further directing the petitioner to furnish further information. 5. Shri R.M. Pande, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that no information with regard to business of the family members of the petitioner had been given. 6. As per the scheme of Order XI of the Code, interrogatories have to be answered by affidavit and in case of an objection that any answer given is insufficient, said aspect has to be determined by the Court. The provisions of Order XI, Rules 10 and 11 of the Code indicate steps to be taken by the party interrogating in case there is omission to answer or if the answer is insufficient. In fact, under Order XI, Rule 11 of the Code, the party interrogating has to apply to the Court in that regard. The aforesaid provisions therefore do not indicate that the Court can on its own determine the aspect of insufficiency of an answer in absence of any grievance in that regard by the person interrogating. 7. In fact, under Order XI, Rule 11 of the Code, the party interrogating has to apply to the Court in that regard. The aforesaid provisions therefore do not indicate that the Court can on its own determine the aspect of insufficiency of an answer in absence of any grievance in that regard by the person interrogating. 7. In the present case the petitioner in response to the interrogatories as made submitted his affidavit. No exception was taken by the respondent on the ground that said information was either insufficient or that there was any omission to answer. The trial Court on its own proceeded to record a finding that the information furnished was insufficient and by observing that it would draw adverse inference, directed the petitioner to furnish further information. The course as followed by the trial Court is not in accordance with the scheme of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order dated 6-7-2015 has been passed by exercising jurisdiction with material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice. The same is therefore liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly following order is passed : (a) Order dated 6-7-2015 passed by the trial Court below Ex. 21 is set aside. (b) It is open for the respondent to take necessary steps in case the respondent feels that the information supplied by the petitioner is insufficient. (c) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.