JUDGMENT : The grant of leave by the Trial Court for the purpose of serving certain interrogatories on the petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.134 of 2018 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Erattupetta, has been challenged by him on the ground that the learned Court has not considered whether the interrogatories or any one of them are necessary either for fairly disposing of the suit or for saving costs. 2. The petitioner, who is the sole defendant in the suit, was called upon by the plaintiff -the respondent herein-through Ext.P3 interrogatories, preferred under Order XI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short), to answer certain questions relating to the post of “Devaswam Superintendant”, of temples belonging to the plaintiff – Trust. 3. According to the petitioner, he filed Ext.P4 objections to the interrogatories, asserting that the questions raised therein are not necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the suit, since the sole prayer therein is that he be injuncted from dealing with, selling, encumbering or committing waste of the plaint schedule properties, but that the ambit of the questions in the interrogatories relate to various other aspects in connection with the discharge of his office as the “Devaswam Superintendant” of seven of the temples of the Trust. 4. The petitioner alleges that even though the Trial Court was obligated-under the provisions of Order XI Rule 2 of the CPC-to first verify whether the interrogatories were necessary for disposal of the suit or for saving its costs, it has, in a mechanical fashion, granted leave to the plaintiff/ respondent to serve the interrogatories upon him merely holding that they are “relating to the position of the defendant as Devaswam Superintendant which was claimed by the defendant and the statement of accounts relating to the movable and other properties administered or possessed by the defendant” (sic). 5. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned order of the Trial Court, a copy of which has been appended to this original petition as Ext.P5, be set aside. 6. 5. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned order of the Trial Court, a copy of which has been appended to this original petition as Ext.P5, be set aside. 6. In answer to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel Shri. T.B. Thankappan and Shri.Ashish Vidyadharan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff-Smt. Bindu Sreekumar submitted that the suit had been preferred by her client with the specific allegation that the petitioner/defendant was proclaiming himself to be the “Devaswam Superintendant” of the temples of the plaintiff – Trust and that he was dealing with its properties as if it was his personal fiefdom She says that the plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P1, that the defendant is not authorized dejure or defacto to be in control of any of the temples of the Trust, but that he appears to have taken illegal possession of its properties, including both movable and immovable, on the assertion that he has been appointed as “Devaswam Superintendant” by the earlier Trustee of the plaintiff and therefore, that he has been sought to be injuncted, from dealing with the properties or encumbering the same, through a permanent prohibitory injunction. 7. Smt. Bindu Sreekumar further submitted that, as is also indubitable from the averments in the written statement filed by the defendant, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.P2, he claims to be the “Devaswam Superintendant” of seven temples of the plaintiff-Trust, appointed to such position by an erstwhile senior-most member of the family by name Shri.Moolamnal P.Ramavarma Raja and that he is thus authorized to administer the said temples and deal with its properties for its benefit, further asserting that he has not done anything contrary to the interest of the plaintiff-Trust at any point of time. She says that, therefore, it becomes absolutely relevant as to whether the petitioner is validly appointed as the “Devaswam Superintendant” at any point of time and whether he had mischievously dealt with its properties, including movables, as has been alleged in the plaint. 8. She says that, therefore, it becomes absolutely relevant as to whether the petitioner is validly appointed as the “Devaswam Superintendant” at any point of time and whether he had mischievously dealt with its properties, including movables, as has been alleged in the plaint. 8. Smt.Bindu Sreekumar predicates that it is in such circumstances that the interrogatories were sought to be served upon the petitioner; and that the Trial Court, after assessing the objections filed by him to it-namely, Ext.P4, has found that they are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the suit, since the claim of the petitioner, as being the “Devaswam Superintendant”, is intrinsically connected with the causes of action pleaded by the plaintiff. She thus prays that this original petition be dismissed. 9. Before I consider the rival contentions as afore, I deem it appropriate that I make a glance through the prayers made in the suit, the averments in the written statement and the questions now ordered to be served on the petitioner through the impugned order. 10. The plaint averments are to the effect that the plaintiff-Family Trust are in ownership of 15 temples and that it is being administered in terms of a Partition Deed of the year 1951 and a Trust Deed of the year 2006, the latter of which has been registered as Document No.239/6 of the SRO, Poonjar. The plaintiff specifically asserts that even though the petitioner has no legal authority, he has self proclaimed himself to be the “Devaswam Superintendant” and has thus assumed management of the temples and therefore, that he is now in a position to misappropriate and mischievously deal with its properties, including its movable assets; with an insinuating allegation that he has done so in the past and is likely to do so in the future. The plaintiff thus prays that the petitioner be injuncted through a permanent prohibitory injunction from selling, destroying, giving in possession to others or from committing any waste on the plaint schedule properties, which are the 15 temples of the Trust and its movable assets. 11. In response to these allegations in the plaint, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 written statement maintaining that he is the “Devaswam Superintendant” appointed by the earlier Valiya Raja of Poonjar, Shri.Moolamnal P.Ramavarma Raja and that this position has been affirmed by all the Valiya Rajas who succeeded him until now. 11. In response to these allegations in the plaint, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 written statement maintaining that he is the “Devaswam Superintendant” appointed by the earlier Valiya Raja of Poonjar, Shri.Moolamnal P.Ramavarma Raja and that this position has been affirmed by all the Valiya Rajas who succeeded him until now. He also says that he has an accurate account of all the properties of the temple and that he is maintaining true income and expenditure accounts, as also the register of the movables; and concludes by maintaining that he has not acted in any manner contrary to the interest of the Temples or the plaintiff-Trust, nor does he intend to do so in future. 12. It is in the afore factual scenario that Ext.P3 interrogatories were sought to be served on the petitioner by the plaintiff-Trust. A glance through the questions in Ext.P3 would show that what has been essentially sought from the petitioner are details as to how he was appointed as the “Devaswam Superintendant” of the various temples; when he was appointed; the document under which he was appointed; the list of the movable properties of the temples; the list of the temples which he claims to be in administration; the list of the movables or immovable properties of the temples which have been sold during his alleged tenure as the “Devaswam Superintendant”; the statement of income and expenditure of the temples during the time he functioned in such capacity; and the document, under which he has been affirmed in the position of “Devaswam Superintendant” by the succeeding Valiya Raja of Poonjar. 13. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 objections to Ext.P3 interrogatories contending that the questions framed therein are relevant for the suit, since all that has been sought against him is an injunction from selling the properties of the temples in future; and further that since the assets of the temples are already scheduled in the plaint, the inventory of which has already been taken by an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court earlier, the interrogatories are unnecessary. 14. The learned Munsiff, thereafter, went on to consider the grant of leave to the plaintiff to serve interrogatories on the petitioner and by the impugned order allowed it, thus granting permission to the plaintiff to deliver the interrogatories to the defendant; with a consequential direction to him to answer the same. 14. The learned Munsiff, thereafter, went on to consider the grant of leave to the plaintiff to serve interrogatories on the petitioner and by the impugned order allowed it, thus granting permission to the plaintiff to deliver the interrogatories to the defendant; with a consequential direction to him to answer the same. It is this order which has been impugned in this original petition. 15. The prescriptions relating to interrogatories are contained under Order XI of the CPC. Under Rule 1 thereof, in any suit the defendant/plaintiff by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing to the opposite party/parties, but before doing so, the leave of the Court will have to be obtained under Rule 2 of the said Order. Since the hypostasis of the assertions of the petitioner are founded on these Rules, I deem it appropriate to extract the same for easy reference as under:- “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 opposite 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 persons is required to answer: Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose: 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. 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.” 16. It is indubitable from the afore Rules that when an application for leave to deliver interrogatories is sought for by a party, the Court will have to consider the same and decide whether the questions therein are necessary, either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. In doing so, certainly, the Court will have to consider the broad contours of the plaint allegations, the defense of the defendant impelled in the written statement as also the nature and tenor of the interrogatories. 17. From the impugned order it is evident that the Trial Court has considered the plaint averments, the defense in the written statement as also the nature of questions in the ExtP3 interrogatories and has concluded that they are necessary for the proper disposal of the suit, because they relate to the petitioner's position as the “Devaswam Superintendant”, which is the primary issue in the suit. 18. When this Court is called upon to consider the validity of Ext.P5 order, I must remind myself that I am not sitting as an Appellate Court over the wisdom of the learned Munsiff, but is only called upon to consider whether the learned Judge has discharged the statutory obligation imposed on it under Order XI Rule 2 of the CPC. As is limpid from the said Rule afore extracted, the Court has to consider grant of the leave from the touch-stone whether the interrogatories are necessary for fairly disposing of the suit or saving costs and nothing else. 19. Interestingly, the aspect whether the questions are relevant or otherwise are not governed by this Rule since, under Order XI Rule 6, it is always open to the petitioner to answer the questions or refuse to do so on the ground of irrelevancy or any other mentioned therein. This is particularly important because under Order XI Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has an adscititious power to ask the person, on whom the interrogatories have been served, to answer further on the application of the person serving it and on such order being passed, it is upto the said person to answer it or suffer an adverse inference as an inevitable consequence. 20. In this case, we are only at the stage of grant of leave to the plaintiff to serve Ext.P3 interrogatories on the petitioner. 20. In this case, we are only at the stage of grant of leave to the plaintiff to serve Ext.P3 interrogatories on the petitioner. The question of its relevance or its merits are not for a Court to decide at this stage, since and all which now should engage the mind of the Court is whether the interrogatories are necessary for disposed of the suit or to reduce costs. The Trial Court has considered this in detail, finding that since all the interrogatories relates to the position of “Devaswam Superintendant”, which position the petitioner claims, he is obligated to answer the same, of course, subject to the mandate of Order XI Rule 6 of the CPC, which grants him the liberty of refusing to answer the questions on the grounds enumerated therein, including irrelevancy. 21. In such forensic background, when I examine Ext.P4 objections filed by the petitioner to the petition filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to serve interrogatories on him, it is clear that his only contention is that the questions are not relevant and have not bearing on the prayers sought for in the plaint. He does not say that the allegations in the plaint do not relate to his position as a “Devaswam Superintendant”, but only that the information being sought are already available in the plaint schedule, and which have already been placed on record by the learned Advocate Commissioner deputed by the Court. These objections certainly do not come within the ambit of Order XI Rule 2 of the CPC, because the Court has entered into a conclusion, rightly in my view, that the questions in Ext.P3 interrogatories are certainly having relevance to the plaint averments and those in the written statement, thus being necessary for the proper disposal of the suit. 22. Before I conclude, I must also record that this Court fails to understand why, as already indicated afore, the petitioner must challenge the grant of leave in this case because it is certainly available to him, under Order XI Rule 6 of the CPC, to refuse to answer the questions on the ground of irrelevancy, which the Court must thereafter consider before finally concluding on the issues framed in the suit. In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I dismiss this original petition finding no error in the impugned order issued by the Trial Court; however, leaving full liberty to the petitioner to invoke all his remedies as are available under Order XI of the CPC, while acting under the mandate of the said order. In the nature of the circumstances seen above, I make no order as to costs and to direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.