JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2013 in I.A. No.4683/2012 in O.S. No.562/2011 of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, the respondents/defendants in the I.A. came up with this petition under Article 227 challenging the legality and its sustainability. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. The challenge is against Exhibit P7 order. The said petition is mistakenly filed under Order IX Rule 1 CPC, but the prayer included would show that it would come under the purview of Order XI Rule 1 CPC. Exhibit P7 order was passed directing the respondent to answer the interrogatories within 21.03.2013. 4. The question came up for consideration is whether it is permissible to have some interrogatories under Order XI CPC with respect to the matters which would fall outside the purview of dispute involved in the suit, whether there is any liability cast on the opposite party to answer such interrogatories and what would be the effect if it was not complied with. 5. Counter was filed by the opposite party, the defendant, stating that the interrogatories ordered under Exhibit P7 would fall outside the purview of the suit and as such no liability cast on the defendant to answer those interrogatories. 6. Going by Order XI Rule 1 CPC, leave can be granted by the trial court only to the matters in question in the suit. The power under Order XI Rule 1 CPC cannot be extended in par with right of cross examination of a witness which is more exhaustive and not limited to the matters in question in the suit. The second proviso to Order XI Rule 1 CPC makes the legal position clear that it is not permissible to deliver interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross examination of a witness. The interrogatories that may be delivered by granting leave should be within the four corners of the suit and should be in relation to any matter in question in the suit. The trial court is bound to apply its mind with respect to the nature of interrogatories and whether it would come under the matter in dispute in the suit. In short, no opposite party can be called upon to answer any interrogatory which would not come under the purview of matter in dispute in the suit. The trial court is bound to apply its mind with respect to the nature of interrogatories and whether it would come under the matter in dispute in the suit. In short, no opposite party can be called upon to answer any interrogatory which would not come under the purview of matter in dispute in the suit. Further, the trial court should always be cautious while drawing adverse inference based on the application of Order XI CPC. A detailed order discussing each and every interrogatory or its impact on relevancy with respect to the matter in dispute in the suit is not at all necessary, but there should be an application of mind in order to weed out unnecessary and unwanted interrogatories and it should reflect in the order itself. There is failure to comply with the said requirement by the lower court and hence the order of lower court in Exhibit P7 is liable to be set aside and I do so. In the result, Exhibit P7 order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the lower court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Original petition is disposed of accordingly.