Person Answering Interrogatories Has To Be Truthful, Giving False Answers Can Be Visited With Perjury: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is incumbent upon a person answering the interrogatories to be truthful in the answers and if the person is eventually found to have given false answers, they can be visited with consequences like perjury, since the answer given in response to interrogatory can be used in evidence.

"Under Order 11, Rule 22 CPC, the answer given in response to an interrogatory can be used in evidence, and therefore, its correctness and veracity will be established only at trial," Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by a Sessions Court whereby the defence of appellants (defendants' in the civil suit) was struck off and the written statement filed by them was directed to be taken off the record.

The plaintiffs to the suit preferred an application under Order 11 Rule 21 read with sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking striking out of the defence of defendants for having failed to answer the interrogatories and non-compliance of a judicial order. The defendants contested the said application and denied willful non-compliance.

Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court directed that defendants' defence in the suit be struck off. Consequently, the written statement filed by the defendants was also directed to be taken off the record.

The Court analyzed Order 11 Rule 21 of CPC and opined that a party is obligated to answer the interrogatory served upon it with the leave of Court and that there shall not be willful non- compliance of the order of the Court.

"Further, under Rule 11, where any person omits to answer or answers insufficiently, the party interrogating may apply to the Court for an order requiring him to answer or to answer further, as the case may be. Insufficient answers would mean incomplete or incoherent answers, and not incorrect answers, since at the time of exchange of interrogatories and answers between the parties, the Court is not required to conduct a summary trial to assess the veracity of the answers," the Court said.

It added "Consequence of striking off of the defendant's defence is a result only of 'failure' to answer the interrogatory, and does not follow when the answer may not be to the liking of the person delivering the interrogatory or allegedly incorrect."

Observing that the consequences are within the domain of the Trial Court which shall eventually deal with the evidence produced by the parties before it, the Court set aside the impugned order.

The Court directed that the written statement filed by defendants to be taken on record. It also directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

Case Title: RATTAN MEHTA & ANR. v. GAYATRI SHAH & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 836

Click Here To Read Order