Arteform Designs Private Ltd. Vs. Abrol Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd

When Interrogatories Cross the Line

Factual Background: Arteform Designs Pvt. Ltd. (the plaintiff) entered into a turnkey contract with Abrol Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. (the defendant) for the construction of a residential house in Kapurthala, Punjab, for the defendant’s Managing Director.

Under this turnkey arrangement, Arteform was to construct and hand over a fully functional house at a fixed cost of ₹5,000 per square foot (plus taxes). According to the plaintiff, about 80–90% of the project was completed, but when the defendant stopped paying the running bills (RA bills), Arteform stopped further work and filed the present recovery suit.

The defendant, however, questioned the cost of construction and filed an application under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking the Court’s permission to serve interrogatories (a set of written questions to be answered on oath by the other party).

Core Dispute

The main issue before the Court was:Whether the defendant could compel the plaintiff to disclose details of procurement of goods, vendor names, GST numbers, bills, and payments related to the project by using interrogatories, even when the contract was for a fixed rate of ₹5,000 per square foot.

The Court dismissed the defendant’s applications under Order XI CPC.It held that the interrogatories sought were irrelevant to the dispute, amounted to a fishing inquiry, and could not override the admitted terms of the contract.

Order XI CPC is not meant for fishing inquiries or filling gaps in evidence.

Interrogatories must be directly connected to the issues framed in the suit, and their scope is narrower than cross-examination.

If dissatisfied with performance or quality, a party must file a counter-claim or separate suit, not misuse interrogatories.

Arteform Designs Private Ltd. Vs. Abrol Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.:Case Number: CS(COMM) 142/2022:High Court of Delhi :Hon’ble Judge: Justice Jasmeet Singh:Order Date: 4 March 2024

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi