Rule 22 of CPC : Rule 22: Using answers to interrogatories at trial.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Scenario: Rajesh files a civil suit against Sunita for breach of contract. During the discovery process, Rajesh sends a set of interrogatories (written questions) to Sunita, which she answers under oath. One of the questions is about whether Sunita received the payment for the contract, to which she answers "Yes."

Application of Rule 22: At the trial, Rajesh wants to use Sunita's answer to the interrogatory where she admitted receiving the payment. He presents this specific answer as evidence to support his claim that Sunita breached the contract despite receiving the payment.

Court's Role: The court may review all of Sunita's answers to the interrogatories. If the court finds that other answers are closely related to the one Rajesh wants to use and that presenting only one answer might be misleading, the court can direct Rajesh to present the additional related answers as well.

Example 2:

Scenario: Priya sues her landlord, Mr. Sharma, for not returning her security deposit after she vacated the rented apartment. During the discovery phase, Priya sends interrogatories to Mr. Sharma, asking about the reasons for withholding the deposit. Mr. Sharma answers that the deposit was withheld due to alleged damages to the property.

Application of Rule 22: At the trial, Priya wants to use Mr. Sharma's answer about the alleged damages to show that the reason for withholding the deposit is unfounded. She presents this specific answer as evidence.

Court's Role: The court may examine all of Mr. Sharma's answers to the interrogatories. If the court believes that other answers provide necessary context to the answer Priya wants to use, it can instruct Priya to present those additional answers to ensure a fair and complete understanding of the situation.