JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. An application filed under Order 11 Rule 1 C.P.C. for discovery of facts by interrogatories (Exh.21) by the petitioner who is the original plaintiff has been rejected by the trial Court by the order passed on 20th February, 2018. The trial Court has expressed an opinion that out of two interrogatories delivered, one was already answered by giving an admission in that regard and the second interrogatory amounted to an attempt to prove the case of the plaintiff through the adversaries like the respondents. Therefore, the trial Court was of the view that this was not permissible under Order 11 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and rejected the application. 4. Shri RM. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the first interrogatory has already been answered by the respondents, second interrogatory has not been answered and since this interrogatory relates to a matter in question in the suit i.e. the exact location of the area in possession of the respondents and its boundaries and direction, the interrogatory is relevant and permissible under Order 11 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. He places his reliance upon the cases of Amruta Kaluji Shejul (since dead), through his L.Rs. Padmabai Amruta Shejul and others vs. Vithal ganpat Wadekar and others, reported in 2017(1) Mh.L.J. 539 , Shrivallabh s/o. Dongardasji Sikchi vs. Ibrahimkhan s/o. Ahmadkhan and another, reported in 2015(2) Mh.L.J. 175 and Sonia Senroy vs. Amit Senroy, reported in 1998(3) Mh.L.J. 726 . 5. Shri P.N. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondents disagrees with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order is legal and correct and it suffers from no manifest illegality or perversity. He submits that it is settled law that either the plaintiff has to stand or his own legs or fall down on the ground and the plaintiff cannot look upon the defendant to prove his case. He submits that requiring an adversary to give information in respect of matters in question in the suit is one thing and calling upon the adversary to even describe the boundaries of the suit property stated to be owned by the plaintiff is another thing. He submits that that the plaintiff in this case has not pleaded boundaries of the suit property, the suit property consists of area 3000 sq.ft. He submits that that the plaintiff in this case has not pleaded boundaries of the suit property, the suit property consists of area 3000 sq.ft. from out a larger piece of land and now the plaintiff is seeking help of the defendants to describe the boundaries of the suit property admeasuring 3000 sq.ft. According to him, when there is no fact pleaded, the fact of boundaries being pleaded, there is no question of making any denial of the pleading and as such there is no matter in question in the present suit. 6. We are concerned here with just one interrogatory which the petitioner desires to be answered by the respondents. This interrogatory reads as under : “What is the exact location (with boundaries and directions) of the total area in possession of the defendant No.1 firm in the property bearing Municipal Corporation House No.71, situated in Ward No.65, on Residency Road, Sadar, Nagpur, having plot area of about 47,000 ft. ?” 7. This question has been put by the petitioner to the respondents only after respondents admitted in the written statement that they were in possession of the piece of land admeasuring 3000 sq.ft. from out of larger plot of 47000 sq.ft. According to the petitioner, if there is an admission about possession of a smaller piece of land from out of a larger piece of land, the respondents must be knowing the boundaries of the area which is in their possession and, therefore, it could not be said that requiring the respondents to divulge this information would amount to an effort to prove the case of the plaintiff at the cost of the defendants. 8. Before considering the crucial issue as to whether or not such an interrogatory can be permitted to be raised we must consider the scope of relevant provision in this regard which is of Order 11 Rule 1. The second proviso to this provision of law is important and it is reproduced as below : “provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness.” 9. The second proviso to this provision of law is important and it is reproduced as below : “provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness.” 9. It is clear that those interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit are deemed to be irrelevant and one need not say any further that an irrelevant interrogatory can never be raised. In this context, a matter which is in question in the suit is a matter which has been pleaded by one party and which has been denied or controverted by the other party. It can also be a matter which incidentally arises out of a matter in question and, therefore, could be considered as part of the pleading of a fact. But such incidental matter is something which arises by necessary implication from a pleading of fact. If there is no pleading of a fact, there is no question of an incidental fact arising by necessary implication. 10. In the present case, the issue is about the boundaries of the suit property. The issue is not about the correctness of boundaries of the suit property. Therefore, what is required on the part of the petitioner or the original plaintiff is to mention or plead the boundaries in the plaint first and then if the boundaries are differently stated by the other side, the issue would arise about what could be the exact nature of boundaries. In such a case, the other side could be called upon through the interrogatory raised, to clarify further the boundaries. However, in this case, this has not happened. The suit property has an area of 3000 sq.ft. and it is a part of larger piece of land comprising about 43000 sq.ft. The petitioner has given the boundaries of larger piece of land having area of about 43000 sq.ft., but has not pleaded in any manner the most basic fact of boundaries of the suit property admeasuring 3000 sq.ft. The suit property has an area of 3000 sq.ft. and it is a part of larger piece of land comprising about 43000 sq.ft. The petitioner has given the boundaries of larger piece of land having area of about 43000 sq.ft., but has not pleaded in any manner the most basic fact of boundaries of the suit property admeasuring 3000 sq.ft. If the most fundamental fact of the pleadings has not been stated, there is no question of denial of it by the other side nor is there a question of any incidental pleading arising and as such there is no matter in question contemplated by second proviso to Order 11 Rule 1 C.P.C. 11. The discussion so far made, would show that the interrogatory raised by the petitioner would have to be said to be irrelevant in terms of second proviso to Order 11 Rule 1 of C.P.C, which I do so. 12. In the cases of Amruta Sejul as well as Shrivallabh Sikchi (supra) same view as I have taken in the present case has been taken. It has been held in both these cases that the main object of the provision of Order 11 Rule 1 is to enable a party to obtain from his advisory, information as to facts which relate to matters in question. If the information is not as to the facts relating to matters in question, the information cannot be elicited under this provision of law. I have already found as to how the interrogatory made in this case does not solicit information as to facts relating to a matter in question. 13. In the case of Sonia Senroy (supra) it has been held that the purpose of the interrogatory is to maintain the case of the party pleading it or to destroy the case of the adversary and, therefore, the scope of the authority to serve interrogatory should not be interpreted within the narrow technical limits and the power to allow interrogatory must be exercised liberally. There can be no quarrel about the proposition of law. But, the power is required to be exercised within the limits prescribed under this provision of law and I have found that the second proviso to Order 11 Rule 1 would bar the interrogatory to be served upon the respondents in this case. There can be no quarrel about the proposition of law. But, the power is required to be exercised within the limits prescribed under this provision of law and I have found that the second proviso to Order 11 Rule 1 would bar the interrogatory to be served upon the respondents in this case. So, on the basis of the facts peculiar to this case, it is not possible for this Court to take a liberal view in the matter inasmuch as this Court would have to respect the limits of law prescribed under Order 11 Rule 1 of C.P.C. which it does so. 14. In view of above, I do not find any patent illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order. There is no merit in the writ petition. 15. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.