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 associated with the ICL, thereby damaging the plaintiff’s business interests. During trial the plaintiff produced six witnesses, including famous cricketers Kapil Dev and Kiran More, who testified in support of the plaintiff. Their cross-examinations concluded in 2009 and 2010 respectively. The plaintiff thereafter closed its evidence.

Later, BCCI (Defendant No. 5) filed an application under Order XI CPC seeking permission to serve interrogatories (written questions requiring sworn answers) on the plaintiff. BCCI relied on letters received in 2012 from Kapil Dev and Kiran More stating they had disassociated themselves from Essel Sports and ICL, allegedly implying their earlier testimonies may have been given under pressure.

Core Dispute

The central question before the Court was whether, at such a late stage (after completion of the plaintiff’s evidence and cross-examination), BCCI could still serve interrogatories on the plaintiff about these two witnesses and their later disassociation from the company.

Submissions by the Parties

Defendant No. 5 (BCCI)

• Argued that Order XI CPC does not limit the timing for serving interrogatories.
• Claimed the plaintiff concealed the fact that Kapil Dev and Kiran More later disassociated from ICL.
• Contended the interrogatories were necessary for proper adjudication and relied on authorities such as:
  • 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 the interrogatories were irrelevant, scandalous, and amounted to abuse of process.
• Submitted that, since the witnesses’ cross-examinations had been completed years earlier, their later disassociation letters were not relevant.
• Contended BCCI was attempting to delay the trial and embark on a “roving inquiry.”

Court’s Reasoning (Justice Vipin Sanghi)

Timing of Interrogatories

Order XI CPC permits interrogatories but they must be relevant and timely. Interrogatories are intended to clarify issues or shorten litigation, not to substitute for cross-examination.

Stage of the Case

The plaintiff’s witnesses had been cross-examined and discharged years before the letters surfaced and the plaintiff’s evidence was closed, so there was no concealment by Essel Sports. If BCCI wished to rely on the new letters, the appropriate course was to either:

• Produce Kapil Dev and Kiran More as its own witnesses, or
• Seek recall of those witnesses for further cross-examination (with the Court’s permission).

Limitations on Use of Interrogatories

Interrogatories cannot be used to reopen evidence or to fill gaps in cross-examination. Rule 1 of Order XI restricts interrogatories to matters directly related to the issues in the suit.

Distinguishing the Authorities

The precedents cited by BCCI involved situations where interrogatories were raised before or during trial, not after the completion of evidence. The Court therefore found those cases distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts.

Fairness and Natural Justice

Allowing interrogatories at this late stage would be unfair and contrary to natural justice. The Court observed that BCCI appeared to be attempting to indirectly nullify the earlier testimony of Kapil Dev and Kiran More via interrogatories rather than following the proper legal procedure.

Final Decision

The Court dismissed BCCI’s application as misconceived and unjustified, holding that interrogatories at this stage were not permissible.

Law Settled by the Case

Interrogatories under Order XI CPC cannot be used as a substitute for cross-examination. They must be relevant to the 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 proper remedy is to recall the witnesses (with the Court’s permission) or produce them as one’s own witnesses, rather than misuse interrogatories.

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