Rule 3 of CPC : Rule 3: Costs of 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:

Scenario: Rajesh files a civil suit against his neighbor, Suresh, for encroaching on his property. During the discovery process, Rajesh's lawyer sends a set of 50 interrogatories (written questions) to Suresh, asking for detailed information about the property boundaries, past disputes, and other related matters.

Application of Rule 3:

  • Suresh finds the interrogatories to be excessive and believes many of them are irrelevant and meant to harass him.
  • Suresh's lawyer requests the court to review the propriety of these interrogatories.
  • The court examines the interrogatories and determines that many of them are indeed unreasonable and vexatious.
  • As a result, the court orders Rajesh to bear the costs associated with these unnecessary interrogatories and the time Suresh spent answering them.

Example 2:

Scenario: Priya is involved in a breach of contract case with her former business partner, Anil. Anil's lawyer sends a set of interrogatories to Priya, asking for detailed financial records, emails, and other documents spanning over ten years.

Application of Rule 3:

  • Priya feels that the interrogatories are overly broad and not directly relevant to the breach of contract issue.
  • Priya's lawyer files a motion with the court to review the interrogatories.
  • The court reviews the interrogatories and finds that they are excessively lengthy and not all questions are pertinent to the case.
  • The court rules that Anil's interrogatories were exhibited at improper length and orders Anil to pay the costs incurred by Priya in responding to these interrogatories.

Example 3:

Scenario: Meera is suing a construction company for poor workmanship on her house. The construction company's lawyer sends a set of interrogatories to Meera, asking for detailed information about her communications with other contractors, her financial status, and her personal life.

Application of Rule 3:

  • Meera believes that many of the interrogatories are irrelevant and intended to intimidate her.
  • Meera's lawyer requests the court to investigate the propriety of these interrogatories.
  • The court reviews the interrogatories and concludes that several questions are irrelevant and vexatious.
  • The court orders the construction company to pay for the costs Meera incurred in answering the unreasonable interrogatories.