ORDER : By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.09.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), District Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. in case 102/1 of 2017. 2. Civil Suit No. 102-1 of 2017, titled as Mehboob Alam & another vs. Smt. Shahina Tabassum with the following relief is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court:- “It is therefore prayed that in the above stated circumstances, facts and submissions a decree for declaration to the effect:- (a) That the Plaintiffs being owners of the suit property comprising of no khasras 649, 651, 661 and 662 kittas 4 measuring 03-96, 91-40, 200-75, 64-80 sqr mtrs comprised of khata khatauni no. 204 min/325 min and 205/326 min as per extract of Jamabandi of the year 2013-14 of Muhal Naya Bazaar Nahan, Distt Sirmaur H.P. are entitled to get possession from the defendant on the basis of their title; (b) That the possession of the defendant over the suit property after a valid divorce on 18-05-2017 by plaintiff no. 2 and after asking the plaintiff no. 1 to leave the suit property who was no more willing to keep defendant in the same any more, is quite illegal and unauthorized: (c) That after a valid divorce on 18-05-2017 the defendant has no legal right to file or to continue the proceedings under the D.V. Act and the orders passed or to be passed in nature of interim or final have become and will be nonest and being contrary to law and will not be binding of effective over the plaintiff no. 2 or his property; (d) That the defendant is not entitled to attend the functions of the school New Era High School after her valid expulsion from the school as well from the society named New Era society vide resolution of the society dated 18-07-2016 and order of expulsion of the even date and the defendant is not entitled to receive or charge any fee from the students of the school and open any bank account of her own claiming herself as principal and maintaining a bank account for school and nor she is entitled to misappropriate the amount so received for herself; With the consequential relief: (i) That a decree of on the basis of title be kindly passed against the defendant and in favour of the Plaintiffs qua the suit property; (ii) A decree of mandatory injunction be passed against the defendant directing her to render the account regarding the school fee, funds/ expenditure etc. right after her expulsion till date which she received/incurred; (iii) That a decree for recovery of amount due after such rendition of accounts, in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the defendant; (iv) That a decree of permanent injunction be also awarded restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the suit property including the school and to deal with school affairs in future in any manner either personally or through her agents, servants and family members etc;” 3. The parties are being referred to by the same status as they hold before the learned trial Court. Petitioner herein is defendant and respondents herein are plaintiffs. 4. Rival contentions emerging from pleadings of parties can be summarised as under:- 4.1 That plaintiff No.2 is the husband of defendant and plaintiff No.1 is her father-in-law. 4.2 The suit property as detailed in para-1 of the plaintiff though owned by plaintiffs is in possession of defendant. 4.3 The reason for discord between the parties are matrimonial incompatibilities. 4.4 Plaintiff No.2 claims to have divorced defendant in accordance with the Mohammadan Law, which fact is disputed by defendant. 4.5 Whereas plaintiffs claim possession of defendant, on suit property, to be unauthorised, defendant has set up the plea of tenancy in respect of suit property in her favour. 4.6 Plaintiffs claim that they have been ousted from their property by defendant since 2017. 4.5 Whereas plaintiffs claim possession of defendant, on suit property, to be unauthorised, defendant has set up the plea of tenancy in respect of suit property in her favour. 4.6 Plaintiffs claim that they have been ousted from their property by defendant since 2017. On the other hand, defendant maintains that she is victim of domestic violence at the hands of the plaintiffs and as such has been granted protection rights by the Court in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 5. Issues stands framed in the suit before the learned trial court and the matter is stated to be pending for evidence of plaintiffs. At such stage, defendant filed an application before the learned trial Court under Order XI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “Code”) seeking leave of the court to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiffs as detailed in the application. It will be relevant to reproduce the interrogatories sought to be delivered to plaintiffs by defendant, as under:- “4. The interrogative are as under: (i) The plaintiffs have claimed that after the starting of primary school by Smt. Rehana Aalam comprising of two rooms, one veranda upto May,2005, the plaintiff's have raised further construction of school building, but they have not disclosed any document regarding the investment made by them in the alleged construction, as such by way of this interrogatory the plaintiffs are required to file the detail of amount of expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in the construction of the school building w.e.f. May, 2005 till 21-11-2014 or till today. (the defendants have filed the detail of expenditure for the construction of the school building w.e.f. 21-11- 2014). (ii) Letter pertaining to the appointment of defendant as Principal by the New Era Society. (iii) By laws of the New Era Society, which reveals that the school New Era Academy High School is being run by the said society. (iv) The resolution of appointment of New Principal Neha Tomar and tenure of her serving and the emoluments are paid to her for such appointment, if any. (v) Detail of statement of account of Sh. Nadeem Aalam pertaining to his saving account no. 3237134604 and account no. SB A/C No. 5590110491 especially under what capacity the said account was opened and closed. (vi) The mode of alleged payment amount of Mehar amounting to Rs. (v) Detail of statement of account of Sh. Nadeem Aalam pertaining to his saving account no. 3237134604 and account no. SB A/C No. 5590110491 especially under what capacity the said account was opened and closed. (vi) The mode of alleged payment amount of Mehar amounting to Rs. 13,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- to defendant Smt. Shahina Aalam. (vii) Brain operation record of Sh. Nadeem Aalam plaintiff no. 2. (viii) Balance Sheet or other account pertaining to the expenditure spent by the plaintiffs in the maintenance and addition, alteration of the New Era High School building, Mohalla Shamsher Ganj, Nahan. (ix) The detail of the School Bus including its registration no. and chassis no. etc. purchased from the funds of the school which has now been taken away to New Way Public School Shambhuwala, Tehsil Nahan Distt. Sirmaur, H.P. (x) Detail of the police complaints made against them by defendant no. 2 and complaints the plaintiff and mother of the plaintiff no. 2 has made to the various authorities against defendant.” 6. Plaintiff contested the prayer of the defendant on the ground that they have already produced the documents on which they are placing reliance in support of their claim in the plaint. The application has been filed by defendant to harass and humiliate plaintiffs and also to delay the matter. Defendant has sufficient opportunity to rebut the claim of plaintiffs at the time of cross-examinations of plaintiffs and their witnesses. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. Undoubtedly, provisions of Order XI of the Code are meant to cut short the procedural wrangles usually applied in the course of adjudication of a suit. This provision of law, however, deals with different situations culled as under which may be applicable at different stages of the suit: 8.1 Rule 1 of Order XI of the Code provides rights to the parties to examine the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties by delivery of interrogatories, while using such provisions a party can be permitted to deliver only such interrogatories which are relevant to the issues involved in the suit. Thus, this provision contemplates a questionnaire to be delivered by one party to the other for answers. Thus, this provision contemplates a questionnaire to be delivered by one party to the other for answers. 8.2 Under Rule 12 of Order XI of the Code, another situation is reflected where a party can apply to the court for an order directing the other party to make discovery of such documents on oath which are or have been in his possession and power and relating to any matter in question involved in the suit. 8.3 The third situation is covered by Rule 15 of Order 11 which provides for a right of either party to the suit to issue notice to other party for production of such document for its inspection which have been referred in pleadings of either party or have been entered in the list of documents annexed to the pleadings of said party. 9. In the instant case, the records reveal that though the application was filed under Rules 1 to 4 of Order XI, yet the interrogatories were sought on certain documents without specifying whether defendant required simple inspection of documents or intended plaintiffs to make discovery of such documents on oath. Noticeably, the application of applicant will not be covered under the situation referred to in paragraph 8.1(supra). 10. The only reason assigned for filing the application by the defendant is that the interrogatories were required to be delivered to the plaintiffs for answering the same or to produce documents relating to the matter in controversy. Thus, the averments in the application as well as relief prayed therein are vague. The real intent and purpose for filing the application by defendant cannot be made out from the averments made in the application and also the relief prayed therein. 11. It is trite law that the litigation cannot be used as a board of chess so as to keep everyone including the court guessing. The claim placed before the court should be clear and unambiguous so that neither the opposing party nor courts are taken by surprise. The provision of law is to be applied on the basis of averments made and not by looking at the provision mentioned in the title of application/petition/plaint. In the instant case, the application filed by defendant, as noticed above, was neither clear as to the claim of the defendant nor regarding the purpose sought to be achieved thereby. 12. The provision of law is to be applied on the basis of averments made and not by looking at the provision mentioned in the title of application/petition/plaint. In the instant case, the application filed by defendant, as noticed above, was neither clear as to the claim of the defendant nor regarding the purpose sought to be achieved thereby. 12. The impugned order also appears to be the result of above noted confusing state of affairs and thus cannot be faulted merely that it is non-speaking on material particulars. 13. In the light of the observations made hereinabove, the application as laid by defendant seeking aid of Rules 1 to 4 of Order XI of the Code deserves dismissal being not in assimilation with requirements of law. The instant petition is also dismissed. However, since no adjudication has been made on the merits of the claim of the defendant, this order will not be a bar for either of the parties to seek their remedies, if so required, under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, strictly in accordance with. The instant petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.