Why Interrogatories Cannot Replace Cross-Examination:
Factual Background
Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff, is the company behind the Indian Cricket League (ICL). The defendants include the Union of India and notably the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The plaintiff alleged that BCCI engaged in unfair practices, intimidating and threatening players who were associated with the ICL, thereby damaging the plaintiff’s business interests.
During the trial, the plaintiff produced six witnesses, including famous cricketers like Kapil Dev and Kiran More, who testified in support of the plaintiff. Their cross-examination concluded in 2009 and 2010 respectively. The plaintiff thereafter closed its evidence.
Later, BCCI (Defendant No. 5) filed an application under Order XI CPC (Civil Procedure Code) seeking permission to serve interrogatories (a set of written questions that must be answered on oath) to the plaintiff. The reason was that BCCI had received letters in 2012 from Kapil Dev and Kiran More stating they had disassociated themselves from Essel Sports and ICL, and allegedly implying their earlier testimonies may have been given under pressure.
Core Dispute
The dispute before the Court was whether, at such a late stage (after completion of plaintiff’s evidence and cross-examination), BCCI could still serve interrogatories on the plaintiff regarding these two witnesses and their disassociation from the company.
Submissions by the Parties
Defendant No. 5 (BCCI):Argued that Order XI CPC does not limit when interrogatories may be served.Claimed that the plaintiff concealed the fact that Kapil Dev and Kiran More had later disassociated from ICL.Asserted that the interrogatories were necessary for proper adjudication and relied on case laws like:Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (AIR 1968 All 601).Smt. Sharda Dhir v. Ashok Kumar Makhija (99 (2002) DLT 350).Canara Bank v. Rajiv Tyagi (166 (2010) DLT 523)
Plaintiff (Essel Sports):Opposed the application as mala fide (bad faith) and an attempt to cover up deficiencies in BCCI’s earlier cross-examinations.Argued that the interrogatories were irrelevant, scandalous, and amounted to abuse of process.Stated that since the witnesses’ cross-examinations had been completed years earlier, their later disassociation letters were not relevant.Submitted that BCCI was trying to delay the trial and engage in a “roving inquiry.”
Court’s Reasoning:Justice Vipin Sanghi carefully analyzed the legal position and facts:Timing of Interrogatories:Order XI CPC allows interrogatories but they must be relevant and timely.Interrogatories are meant to clarify issues or shorten litigation, not to substitute cross-examination.
Stage of the Case:Plaintiff’s witnesses had been cross-examined and discharged years before the letters surfaced.Evidence was closed, so there was no concealment by the plaintiff.If BCCI wanted to rely on the new letters, they could either produce Kapil Dev and Kiran More as their own witnesses or seek recall of those witnesses for further cross-examination.
Limitations of Interrogatories:Interrogatories cannot be used to reopen evidence or fix gaps in cross-examination.Rule 1 of Order XI clearly restricts interrogatories to matters directly related to issues in the suit.
Distinguishing Cited Cases:The precedents cited by BCCI involved situations where interrogatories were raised before or during trial, not after completion of evidence.Thus, those cases were not applicable here.
Fairness and Justice:Allowing interrogatories at this late stage would be unfair and contrary to natural justice.The Court observed that BCCI was trying to indirectly nullify the testimony of Kapil Dev and Kiran More through interrogatories instead of following the proper legal route.
Final Decision:The Court dismissed BCCI’s application as misconceived and unjustified. The Court held that interrogatories at this stage were not permissible. It also imposed costs of ₹20,000 on BCCI to be paid to Essel Sports within two weeks.
Law Settled by the Case:Interrogatories under Order XI CPC cannot be used as a substitute for cross-examination. They must be relevant to issues framed in the suit and cannot be raised at any arbitrary stage. After witnesses are cross-examined and discharged, interrogatories cannot be served to indirectly challenge or discredit their testimony. If fresh facts arise later, the correct remedy is to either recall the witnesses (with court’s permission) or produce them as one’s own witnesses, not to misuse interrogatories.
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
