031-SLLR-SLLR-2006-V-3-THE-FINANCE-CO.-LTD-vs.-SRIYANI.pdf
248
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
THE FINANCE CO. LTDVSSRIYANICOURT OF APPEAL.
WIMALACHANDRAJ.
CALA 282/2004.
DC HAMBANTOTA 2908/M (LG).
AUGUST 15, 2005.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2005.
Civil Procedure Code, section 100-lnterrogatories-Answer to aninterrogatory cannot be vague-Courts power to direct a party to answerinterrogatories.
In the instant case filed under summary procedure to recover a certainsum on a cheque, the interrogatory raised by the defendant, according tohim was answered vaguely by the plaintiff. In the circumstances, he movedfor an order requiring the plaintiff to answer further. The Court disallowedthe application.
HELD:
Under section 100 of the Code where a person served with aninterrogatory omits or refuses to answer or answers it insufficiently,the party interrogating can apply to the Court for an order requiringsuch other party to answer further. The Court has the power todirect him by order, to answer the interrogatory or to answer itfurther, either by an affidavit or by viva voce examination.
The question for the Court is whether the answer is sufficient orinsufficient and not the correctness of the answer at this stage, ifthe answer is insufficient a further answer is necessary.
APPLICATION for leave to appeal from an order of the District Court ofHambantota with leave being granted.
/. S. de Silva with Priyantha Alagiyawanna for defendant-petitioner.S. Daluwatta for plaintiff – respondent.
CA
The Finance Co. Ltd Vs Sriyanl
(Wimalachandra, J.)
249
March 17,2006WIMALACHANDRA, J.
This is an application for leave to appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner (defendant) from the order of the learned district judge ofHambantota dated 19.07.2004. By that order the learned Judge heldthat the plaintiff-respondent (plaintiff) has sufficiently answered theinterrogatories delivered by the defendant and the plaintiff need notanswer them any further. Briefly, the facts are as follows:
The plaintiff instituted action by way of summary procedure againstthe defendant and its Sales Manager of its Ambalangoda Branchclaiming a sum of Rs. 450,000 on a cheque. The plaintiff claimed thesaid cheque was issued to her being the refund of a certificate ofdeposit which she had placed with the defendant. The defendant in hisamended answer and as well as in the original answer took up theposition that the said certificate of deposit on which the said chequewas issued was obtained by the plaintiff by a fraud perpetrated on thedefendant by the plaintiff with one of the defendant's former employees,named H. K. Nishantha and in fact there were no monies deposited bythe plaintiff with the defendant. The defendant sought permission ofCourt to serve interrogatories on the plaintiff and the Court made orderto serve the same on the plaintiffs Attorney-at-law. Thereafter theplaintiff filed an affidavit answering the said interrogatories.Subsequently, the defendant sought time to take steps to obtain aperemptory order from Court to compel the plaintiff to answer or furtheranswer the said interrogatories on the ground that the plaintiff hadgiven evasive answers to some of the interrogatories and in particularlyas the interrogatory No. 5 had not been answered sufficiently. TheCourt made order that the plaintiff had sufficiently answered theinterrogatories and she need not answer any further. It is against thisorder the plaintiff had filed this application for leave to appeal.
2S0
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri LR.
(The amount is a renewal of the amount deposited with the Company.)
It is the position of the defendant that the plaintiff never depositedany money with the defendant and had obtained the fixed depositcertificate fraudulently by acting in connivance with a former employeeof the defendant-company, namely H. K. Nishantha.
The learned counsel for the defendant contended that theanswer to interrogatpry No. 5(a) is vague and a clear answer to it isvery vital to the defendant's case, as the defendant has taken up theposition that no monies had been deposited by the plaintiff with thedefendant, and that the plaintiff without stating how she had receivedthe money to make a deposit, had merely stated that it was a renewal.
Under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, where a personserved with an interrogatory omits or refuses to answer it, or answers
When this matter was taken up for inquiry before this Court, bothparties agreed that if the Court granted leave, the appeal also bedecided on the same submissions.
The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the Court,without granting time for the defendant to file papers for a peremptoryorder, proceeded to make order that the plaintiff had sufficientlyanswered the interrogatories and she need not answer any further. Byinterrogatory No. 5 (a) the defendant has asked the following question.
Interrogatory No. 5 (a) – If there was a deposit prior to the deposit ofRs. 450,000, how did you receive that money ?
The plaintiffs answer reads thus:
CA
The Finance Co. Ltd Vs Sriyani
(Wimalachandra, J.)
251
it insufficiently, the party interrogating can apply to the Court for anorder requiring such other party to answer further. The Court has thepower to direct him, by order, to answer the interrogatory or to answerit further, either by an affidavit or by viva voce examination.
It is to be observed that at no stage had the plaintiff taken up' theposition that the interrogatory No. 5(a) is irrelevant, scandalous ormala fide. It appears that she had merely given an evasive answer.The plaintiff without stating how she had received the money to makea deposit, merely stated that it was a renewal of a previous deposit.She had not given the particulars of the previous deposit if it was arenewal of a deposit.
The question for the Court is whether the answer is sufficient orinsufficient and not the correctness of the answer at this stage. If theanswer is insufficient a further answer is necessary. In the instantcase, a clear answer to the interrogatory No. 5(a) is relevant to thedefendant, so as to enable him to prepare for the case, he has tomeet. The defendant is entitled to ascertain from the plaintiff how shehad received a large amount of money and if it was from a renewal ofa deposit as stated by the plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to knowthe particulars of the deposit.
In the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned judge erredin law when he prevented the defendant from obtaining a completeanswer to the interrogatory No. 5(a) so as to enable him to prepare forthe case he has to meet. More so, when the defendant has brought tothe notice of Court that the plaintiff was a party to a fraud committedagainst the defendant-company along with former employee of thedefendant-company, namely, H. K. Nishantha and which fraud is the
252
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2006) 3 Sri L R.
subject matter of the proceedings in the High Court Case Nos. 56/2004(A) and (B) in the Provincial High Court of Hambantota.
For these reasons, leave to appeal is granted and I set aside theaforesaid order of the learned District Judge dated 19.07.2004 anddirect the learned Judge to order the plaintiff to answer further, theaforesaid interrogatory No. 5(a), either by affidavit or by viva voce, asthe Court may direct. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costsfixed at Rs. 5250.
Appeal allowed.