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.
Submissions of the Parties
Plaintiff (Arteform Designs Pvt. Ltd.)


The contract was turnkey in nature, meaning Arteform was bound to deliver a finished house at a fixed cost.


Since the price was fixed at ₹5,000 per sq. ft., the defendant had no right to demand internal details of vendors, costs of materials, or procurement bills.


The interrogatories were, in effect, a “fishing and roving inquiry”, not relevant to the suit, and an attempt to delay proceedings.
Defendant (Abrol Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.)


The plaintiff was required to provide a chart of materials procured and costs incurred, but failed to do so.


Interrogatories about vendor details, GST numbers, original bills, and payments were necessary to ascertain the truth and decide the disputes.


Argued that interrogatories are an accepted tool under Order XI CPC, relying on case law such as:


Shardha Dhir v. Ashok Kumar Makhija (2002 SCC OnLine Del 688)


Bhakta Charan Malik v. Nataorar Malik (1990 SCC OnLine Ori 90)
Court’s Reasoning

Justice Jasmeet Singh carefully examined the facts and the law:


Nature of the Contract:


The admitted documents, including the defendant’s own emails and letters (2018 and 2021), clearly showed that the project was contracted at a fixed cost of ₹5,000 per square foot (plus taxes).


In such a contract, how or from whom the plaintiff procured materials was not the defendant’s concern.


Turnkey Agreement:


Once a fixed per square foot rate was agreed upon, the defendant could not demand details of internal costs or vendor records.


If the defendant was unhappy with the quality of materials, its remedy lay in filing a counter-claim or an independent suit, not through interrogatories.


Limits on Interrogatories (Order XI CPC):


The Court cited Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2013 SCC OnLine Del 3261), where it was held that:


Interrogatories cannot be used as a substitute for cross-examination.


They cannot be employed to conduct a roving inquiry.


Only interrogatories directly related to the issues in the suit are relevant.


Defendant’s Reliance on Case Law:


While precedents recognize that interrogatories can help obtain admissions and cut short litigation, those principles did not apply here because the cost of construction had already been agreed upon in writing.


Therefore, details of procurement were irrelevant.


Right of Cross-Examination Still Open:


The plaintiff had not yet stepped into the witness box.


The defendant still had full liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff on its pleadings and evidence at the trial stage.
Final Decision

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.


The suit was listed for the next stage of proceedings.
Law Settled by the Case


In a turnkey contract with a fixed price, the opposite party cannot demand details of procurement of material through interrogatories.


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.

Case Title: Arteform Designs Private Ltd. Vs. Abrol Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 142/2022
Court: High Court of Delhi at New 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