JUDGMENT : Jyoti Saran, J. Heard Mr. Dhrub Narain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWJC No. 24380 of 2013 who are plaintiffs in the suit, Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 who are defendants in the suit and petitioners in CWJC No. 8703 of 2015 and Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh No. 1 for the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 and 2 in CWJC No. 8703 of 2015. 2. The subject matter of the two writ petitions is the order dated 1.11.2013 passed by the learned Sub - Judge - I, Begusarai in Title (Partition) Suit No. 188 of 1997, whereby the learned trial court while considering 333 interrogatories served by the deceased defendant no. 1 on the plaintiff-petitioner. in CWJC No. 24380 of 2013 has found 172 interrogatories worthy of answer by the plaintiffs while rejecting the rest 161 holding them vexatious and not relevant to the issues involved and while the plaintiffs are before this Court questioning the order in so far as the trial court has allowed 172 interrogatories to be answered by them, on the other hand the defendants have questioned the rejection of the 161 interrogatories in the second writ petition i.e. CWJC No. 8703 of 2015. 3. Since the parties to the dispute and order under challenge is common in the two writ petitions hence they have been heard analogous and with the consent of the parties, are being disposed of at the stage of Admission itself. 4. For the sake of convenience I would be referring to the status of the parties and the pleadings as occurring in CWJC No. 24380 of 2015 unless clarified by specific reference to the other writ petition. 5. The suit has a chequered history and after being dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11(D) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') vide judgment and decree dated 10.9.1999, it reached this Court in FA No. 475 of 1999 which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 1.4.2010 and remitted back to the trial court for hearing and adjudication afresh. It is upon remand of the matter by this Court as the first appellate court that the deceased defendant no. 1 Late Rabindra Narayan Agrawal who stands substituted by respondent nos. 1 to 3, served 333 interrogatories on the plaintiffs seeking answer thereon vide application filed on 18.11.2010. It is upon remand of the matter by this Court as the first appellate court that the deceased defendant no. 1 Late Rabindra Narayan Agrawal who stands substituted by respondent nos. 1 to 3, served 333 interrogatories on the plaintiffs seeking answer thereon vide application filed on 18.11.2010. The prayer was allowed by the trial court on 24.8.2012 and was questioned before this Court by the plaintiffs in CWJC No. 18542 of 2012. The said writ petition was, however, sought to be withdrawn by the plaintiffs to raise their objection in the court below itself. It is thereafter that an objection was filed by the plaintiffs to the interrogatories under Order-XI rule 6 and defendant no. 1 filed his rejoinder. In the opinion of the trial court the objection was not explanatory rather merely cast aspersions on the exercise undertaken by the defendant by terming it scandalous, irrelevant and lacking in bonafides. 6. The order impugned reflects that the plaintiffs were directed to substantiate their contention for questioning the interrogatories and which was submitted and the matter was heard. The trial court has expressed that he has gone through each of the interrogatories and of the 333 interrogatories so put up by the defendant while 172 interrogatories were considered connected with the issues involved in the suit but the trial court has found the rest 161 interrogatories irrelevant and unconnected with the contest and hence has rejected the same. 7. While the plaintiffs are before this Court questioning the order passed by the trial court on 1.11.2013 in so far as it has allowed 172 interrogatories and directed the plaintiffs to respond to the same, the defendant respondent no. 2 are before this Court against the rejection of 161 interrogatories. 8. Mr. Dhrub Narain, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner. has laboured hard to impress this Court that the order impugned is without application of mind for before allowing the interrogatories and directing the plaintiff-petitioner. to respond to the same, the trial court should have given a detailed discussion on each of the interrogatories as to why he finds it relevant since according to Mr. Narain all these interrogatories were irrelevant and could have been posed before the plaintiff-petitioner. during the course of cross-examination in the trial. It is also the argument of Mr. to respond to the same, the trial court should have given a detailed discussion on each of the interrogatories as to why he finds it relevant since according to Mr. Narain all these interrogatories were irrelevant and could have been posed before the plaintiff-petitioner. during the course of cross-examination in the trial. It is also the argument of Mr. Narain that the interrogatories have been served by the defendant 1st set merely to seek an answer from the plaintiffs on the issues which are subject matter of the suit and in view of the provisions of Order-X of 'the Code', these matters can well be thrashed out during the course of trial and in course of examination of the plaintiffs. Mr. Narain while accepting the jurisdiction of the trial court vested under Order-XI of the Code does submit that such jurisdiction has to be exercised cautiously and not in a mechanical manner. 9. The grounds on which Mr. Narain questions the order is that there is no discussion on the interrogatories nor any reasons have been assigned as to why they have been allowed and secondly that the order reflects non-application of mind. The third ground which he raises is that it is pre-mature and thus the trial court ought to have exercised jurisdiction vested under Order 11, Rule 20 of 'the Code' to hold the interrogatories premature. Mr. Narain addressing the Court on the scope of exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has fairly while accepting the limitation thereto, submitted that since the trial court has proceeded in ignorance of the statutory provisions hence there are sufficient reasons to interfere with the same. According to him, since the issues are yet to be framed and written statement is yet to be accepted hence it was pre-mature for the trial court to allow the interrogatories. 10. Mr. Mrigank Mauli responding to the issues has while accepting the limitation to the exercise under Article 227 of the Constitution of India submitted that since the issues raised in the plaint required certain response from the plaintiffs which has necessitated the filing of the interrogatories. He fairly submits that the jurisdiction exclusively lies with the trial court whether to uphold or reject the interrogatories and thus there cannot be any question on the exercise. He fairly submits that the jurisdiction exclusively lies with the trial court whether to uphold or reject the interrogatories and thus there cannot be any question on the exercise. Fairly conceding that though even the defendants are before this Court to questioning the order of rejection but the discretion is entirely within the domain of the trial court. 11. While contesting the argument of Mr. Narain on the scope of exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Mauli has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 (Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil) more particularly paragraph 49 thereof. 12. Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh No. 1, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondent nos. 1 & 2 in CWJC No. 8703 of 2015 has admitted to the jurisdiction exercised by the trial court in the best interest of the parties while rejecting 161 interrogatories. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. 14. The provisions of Order-XI of 'the Code' leaves nothing to speculate that it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the trial court to either accept or reject interrogatories. In fact rule 1 and 2 of Order-XI of 'the Code' are self eloquent and explicit on the jurisdiction vested in the trial court. There is thus no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in accepting 172 interrogatories out of 333 interrogatories served by the defendant itself but rejecting the rest 161 interrogatories. According to Mr. Narain, since the issues have not been framed nor the written statement filed by the defendant has yet been accepted by the trial court, the stage is pre-mature but I am afraid the objection taken by Mr. Narain is not supported by the statutory provisions underlying Order-XI of 'the Code' for there is no such bar nor there is any prescription as to the stage at which any interrogatories are to be served. As I have held that discretion entirely lies with the trial court with the only exception that the interrogatories should not appear vexatious, unconnected with the issues and not being filed with intention to delay the suit. Rule 20 of Order-XI of 'the Code' relied by Mr. Narain also does not come to his rescue for again the discretion lies with the trial court. 15. Rule 20 of Order-XI of 'the Code' relied by Mr. Narain also does not come to his rescue for again the discretion lies with the trial court. 15. The second issue raised by Mr. Narain is that the order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind. I am afraid even this objection is only taken to be rejected for the opinion expressed by the trial court as reflected in the impugned order does mention that the trial court has examined the interrogatories individually and while the trial court has found 172 of them connected with the issues involved requiring an answer from the plaintiffs, the rest 161 interrogatories were declared irrelevant and unconnected with the issues. It is thus not a case where the trial court has mechanically accepted the interrogatories rather the very fact that the trial court has accepted 172 interrogatories out of 333 and has rejected 161 interrogatories that by itself is sufficient to uphold the opinion of the trial court on the relevance thereof as well as the fact that the order is supported with application of mind. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, neither do I find any perversity in the order passed by the trial court as impugned in the two writ petitions nor there is any error in exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. In consequence both the writ petitions are dismissed. 17. Let the trial be expedited.