No. 3 of CPC : No. 3: ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES
CPC
JavaScript did not load properly
Some content might be missing or broken. Please try disabling content blockers or use a different browser like Chrome, Safari or Firefox.
Explanation using Example
Example 1:
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar vs. Suresh Gupta
Court: District Court, Delhi
Plaintiff: Ramesh Kumar
Defendant: Suresh Gupta
Interrogatories by Plaintiff:
- Did you, on the 15th of March 2023, enter into a contract with the plaintiff for the supply of 100 units of electronic goods?
- Did you receive an advance payment of ₹50,000 from the plaintiff on the same date?
- Have you delivered the 100 units of electronic goods to the plaintiff as per the contract terms?
Answer by Defendant: In answer to the said interrogatories, I, the above-named Suresh Gupta, make oath and say as follows:
- Yes, I did enter into a contract with the plaintiff on the 15th of March 2023 for the supply of 100 units of electronic goods.
- Yes, I did receive an advance payment of ₹50,000 from the plaintiff on the same date.
- No, I have not delivered the 100 units of electronic goods to the plaintiff as per the contract terms because there was a delay in the shipment from the manufacturer.
Example 2:
Case Title: Anita Sharma vs. Rajesh Verma
Court: High Court, Mumbai
Plaintiff: Anita Sharma
Defendant: Rajesh Verma
Interrogatories by Plaintiff:
- Did you, on the 10th of January 2023, borrow ₹2,00,000 from the plaintiff?
- Did you agree to repay the borrowed amount within six months?
- Have you repaid the borrowed amount to the plaintiff?
Answer by Defendant: In answer to the said interrogatories, I, the above-named Rajesh Verma, make oath and say as follows:
- Yes, I did borrow ₹2,00,000 from the plaintiff on the 10th of January 2023.
- Yes, I did agree to repay the borrowed amount within six months.
- No, I have not repaid the borrowed amount to the plaintiff because I am currently facing financial difficulties and have requested an extension for repayment.
Objection by Defendant: I object to answer the interrogatory numbered 4 on the ground that it is not relevant to the issues in this case.