Sathish Ninan, J. - (1.)Application seeking permission to serve interrogatories under Order 11, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as the 'Code'), was dismissed by the court below for the reason,
i) Similar application was filed earlier ii) The questions could be put to witness at the time of cross examination.

(2.)Both the reasons given by the court below are not sustainable as is explicit from the provisos to Order 11, Rule 1. It is relevant to refer to them, and are extracted hereunder.
"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."

(3.)A bare reading of the first proviso reveals that more than one set of interrogatories could be served, the only restriction being that it can be done only with the permission of the court. The Code gives power to the Court to grant permission to deliver further interrogatories in appropriate cases. The court shall consider the relevancy of the interrogatories and pass appropriate orders. The mere fact that application was filed earlier seeking to deliver interrogatories, is not a ground for dismissing the application. The Bombay High Court in M/s. Kishorilal Babulal v. Ramlal Ganeshprasad Tiwari and Ors. AIR 2014 Bombay 19 held thus,
"........As per the first proviso, a party shall not deliver more than one

set of interrogatories to the same party without an order of the Court for that purpose. Apparently,therefore, while delivering the interrogatories, leave of the Court is required. If certain points crop up subsequently and are found relevant, then permission can be granted to give the interrogatories second time. Proviso places restriction on delivering more than one set of interrogatories to the same party. However, legislation did not stop there, but further clause "without an order for that purpose" is added. These words undoubtedly confer power upon the Court to allow a second set of interrogatories to the same party at a time in an appropriate case. If the Legislature intended to restrict the delivery of interrogatories to one set to the same party, then it would not have mentioned the entailing clause in the proviso, i.e."without an order for that purpose".

The court below ought to have considered the application on its merits.