JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit against the defendants/petitioners, wherein one Pranay Kumar is impleaded as a proforma defendant. The relief, which stands ventilated herein, is, for pronouncement of a decree of permanent prohibitory and of mandatory injunction upon defendants No. 1 and 2 against theirs raising construction upon suit Khasra No. 119 and 147, wherefrom the plaintiffs access the ground floor of their house, comprised in Khasra No. 129. The claim for easementry right of passage vis-àvis the plaintiff(s) besides its being exercisable upon the servient heritage borne in Khasra Nos 119 and 147, is, anvilled upon apposite entries, in respect of the aforesaid suit Khasra Nos., occurring in the public records, entries whereof display of the suit Khasra Nos. being reflected as a “gair mumkin gali. The suit is resisted by the defendants, on, the ground that access(s) alternative, to, the aforesaid purported access(s) being also available, to, the plaintiffs being besides vis-à-vis tenants of the plaintiffs, alternative access(s) whereof exist in the vicinity of Sanitorium Hospital. The factum of the validity(s)/tenacities of the apt reflection(s) occurring in the revenue records, in, respect of suit Khasra Nos.119 and Khasra No. 147 being depicted therein, to, be a gair mumkin gali, also, thereupon the plaintiffs’ establishing their right to trudge thereon, for theirs’ accessing their abodes located upon Khasra No. 129, is, awaiting adjudication by the learned trial Court. Consequently, even if the plaintiffs hold any easementary right to trudge upon Khasra Nos. 119 and upon 147, yet the defendants’ by casting an application under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1,2 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC, have, concerted to prima-facie de-establish the aforesaid facets. Also averment(s) apposite thereto stand also cast in paragraph-3 of the written statement. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned trial Court. The defendants are aggrieved, therefrom, hence motioned this Court. 2. The relevant statutory provisions stand borne in Order 11 Rule 1, 2 and 14, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “1. Discovery by interrogatories-In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the apposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such person is required to answer: 2. Particular interrogatories to be submitted- On an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court and that Court shall decide within seven days from the day of filing of the said application. In deciding upon such application, the Court shall take into account any offer, which may be made by the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars, or to make admissions, or to produce documents relating to the matters in question, or any of them, and leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the Court shall consider necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. 14. Production of documents- It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.” Provisions whereof enjoin prima facie substantiation, of, the trite ingredients’ “of” the interrogatory(s) concerted to be delivered by the litigant concerned upon his adversary being relevant vis-à-vis the lis or appertaining to the subject matter in dispute, besides being essential for pronouncing a just decision upon the controversy engaging the litigating parties. 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant contend that the aforesaid ingredient(s) is, prima-facie, not, substantiated thereupon the order pronounced by the learned trial Court warrants vindication. However, the aforesaid submission is rejected, as averment(s) compatible vis-à-vis apposite besides congruous therewith recitals borne in the application at hand, also visibly occurring, in the written statement, especially in paragraph- 3 thereof. 4. Consequently, with the interrogatories appertaining to the subject matter of the lis, hence being not irrelevant, rather being relevant vis-à-vis the lis, thereupon obviously they may be essential for enabling the learned trial court, to, pronounce a just decision upon the controversy(s) whereupon they stand engaged. Even though certain suggestion(s) apposite, to, the interrogatory(s), may be, put by the counsel for defendants while holding the plaintiffs’ witnesses, to cross-examination, theirs hence being put thereat would not bar relief upon the extant application. Even though certain suggestion(s) apposite, to, the interrogatory(s), may be, put by the counsel for defendants while holding the plaintiffs’ witnesses, to cross-examination, theirs hence being put thereat would not bar relief upon the extant application. Conspicuously vis-à-vis a specific averment in the apposite application of a compromise decree standing recorded in respect of a dispute erupting between the plaintiff and one Pranay Kumar, with a display therein of access(s) alternative vis-a-vis the suit Khasra No. being available, for the relevant access(s) by the plaintiffs, thereupon with possession thereof being prima-facie held by the plaintiffs’, it is imperative for the plaintiffs, to mete answer(s) in, respect(s) thereof, significantly, when may be thereupon the defendants may prima-facie establish the apposite averment occurring at serial No. 3 of their written statement. Even if, the aforesaid fact is not initially pleaded in the written statement, nonetheless, given its occurrence taking place subsequent to the institution of the suit, thereupon obviously, with the interrogatory(s) appertaining therewith, are enjoined to be answered by the plaintiffs. 5. In view of above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The plaintiffs are directed, to, on theirs being purveyed the apposite interrogatories mete answers thereto within a week thereafter. It is clarified that the learned trial Court, shall, alongwith the answers meted by the plaintiffs to the interrogatories purveyed to them by the defendants assess, test probative vigor thereof along with other connected therewith best documentary evidence. Also, it is open to all the contesting parties to, through an appropriate application, seek appointment of a Local Commissioner, for his making a report in respect of user of “paths” by the plaintiffs, alternative, to user by them of a path existing upon Khasra Nos 119 and Khasra No.147. 6. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of. Liberty is reserved to both the contesting litigants, to, file an appropriate application before the learned trial Court. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 13.10.2017. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.