ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Suit No. 52/2013 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 4 under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for rendition of the accounts and permanent injunction contending that she herself, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are partners in M/s. Vinod Textiles wherein she was having 25% share. It was submitted that as per the documents obtained by her from the Registrar of Firms, she was partner in the firm and was entitled for profit corresponding her share in the firm. She alleged that for last some time, the defendants were not making her available audited balance sheet and details of the firm’s accounts. Therefore, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for. The defendant No. 4 in his written statement submitted that the plaintiff has retired from the partnership firm w.e.f. 04.01.1994 and has made bald and vague allegations in her plaint. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner-defendant No. 4 moved an application dated 10.02.2019 under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to serve certain interrogatories on the plaintiff which has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order impugned herein. 3. Assailing the order dated 16.01.2020, it was contended by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that without examining the relevancy of interrogatories in the light of pleading of the parties and the issues framed thereon, the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the same on the premise of admission by the petitioner in his written statement about retirement of the plaintiff from the partnership firm w.e.f. 04.01.1994. He contended that approach of the learned trial Court in not entertaining the application on account that the petitioner would be free to ask these questions during cross-examination of the plaintiff, was totally misconceived. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Ramlalsao vs. Tansingh Lalsingh, AIR 1952 Nagpur 135 , Sonia Senroy vs. Amit Senroy, M/s Hira Lal Dhanpat Rai vs. Laxmichand and A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriay Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, AIR 2012 SC 2010 , submitted that the order impugned herein be set aside and his application be allowed. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the application preferred by the petitioner was not bona fide inasmuch as after submission of plaintiff’s evidence by way of examination-in-chief, the application came to be moved. He submitted that the plaintiff’s witness is aged about 80 years and the petitioner wants to avoid her cross-examination on one or the other pretext. He contended that order dated 16.01.2020 does not suffer from any such error; factual, legal, jurisdictional or procedural so as to warrant interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The object of the interrogatories has succinctly been laid down in case of Ramlalsao (supra) wherein it was held as under: “10. The learned Judge erroneously refused leave on the ground that the interrogatories were not material at that stage of the suit, meaning probably, before the oral evidence was recorded. The application for discovery of documents was also disposed of on the same ground. We are of the view that these orders are erroneous. The right of a party to deliver interrogatories to his opponent and get answers from him is a valuable one in conducting his cause and he should not lightly be deprived of it. It must be remembered that discovery of facts and documents often tends to shorten litigation and save expenses. The learned Judge had not framed all the issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. If he had framed these issues and permitted the parties to make full use of Orders 11 and 12, Civil Procedure Code, the trial would have been shortened and he would have found ample malarial to decide the case correctly. Probably, the preliminary decree could have been passed even without going into oral evidence.” In case of A. Shanmugam (supra), it was held as under: “42. In civil cases, adherence to Section 30 CPC would also help in ascertaining the truth. It seems that this provision which ought to be frequently used is rarely pressed in service by our judicial officers and judges. Section 30 CPC reads as under: 30. In civil cases, adherence to Section 30 CPC would also help in ascertaining the truth. It seems that this provision which ought to be frequently used is rarely pressed in service by our judicial officers and judges. Section 30 CPC reads as under: 30. Power to order discovery and the like - Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any party:- (a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence.” In case of M/s. Hira Lal Dhanpat Rai (supra), it was held as under: “6. So long as the interrogatories sought to be served, are relating to and relevant to matters in question having reasonable close connection, the same may be permitted and the mere fact that those facts can be proved by other evidence is no ground for refusing the permission to serve interrogatories. In this connection reference may be made to Jamaitrai Bishansarup vs. Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria wherein it has been observed as under:- “Interrogatories cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question since one legitimate purpose or interrogatories is to obtain admission.” 8. The conspectus of the aforesaid dictum is that serving the interrogatories is a valuable right of a party to the litigation and the Court should not deal with such interrogatories in lackluster manner without appreciating the same in the perspective of pleadings of the parties and issues framed thereupon. A perusal of the order impugned dated 16.01.2020 reveals that the interrogatories served by the petitioner have been rejected merely on the premise that the petitioner has admitted in his written statement the factum of the plaintiff being partner in the firm with averment that she stood retired w.e.f. 04.01.1994. A perusal of the pleadings reveals that the dispute is not confined within that narrow compass only. The another reason assigned by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application has been that such information sought through interrogatories, could be obtained by the petitioner by subjecting plaintiff’s witnesses to cross-examination. A perusal of the pleadings reveals that the dispute is not confined within that narrow compass only. The another reason assigned by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application has been that such information sought through interrogatories, could be obtained by the petitioner by subjecting plaintiff’s witnesses to cross-examination. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application cannot be countenanced. When juxtaposed with the pleadings and issues framed thereupon, in the considered opinion of this Court, some of the interrogatories sought to be served on the plaintiff, appear to be relevant to elucidate the true facts and necessary to shorten the litigation. However, this Court finds that most of the interrogatories are overlapping and the interrogatories No. 4, 8 and 10 only appear to be relevant. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 16.01.2020 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC qua interrogatories No. 4, 8 and 10 stands allowed.