{"id":8443,"date":"2025-09-11T06:35:17","date_gmt":"2025-09-11T06:35:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=8443"},"modified":"2025-09-11T06:40:51","modified_gmt":"2025-09-11T06:40:51","slug":"interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/","title":{"rendered":"Interrogatories Cannot Replace Cross-Examination"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Essel_Sports_Pvt_Ltd_vs_Union_of_India_%E2%80%94_Case_Summary\"><\/span>Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India \u2014 Case Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<div class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd.<\/strong>, the plaintiff, is the company behind the Indian Cricket League (ICL). The defendants include the <strong>Union of India<\/strong> and, notably, the <strong>Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)<\/strong>.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Essel_Sports_Pvt_Ltd_vs_Union_of_India_%E2%80%94_Case_Summary\" >Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India \u2014 Case Summary<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Submissions_by_the_Parties\" >Submissions by the Parties<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Defendant_No_5_BCCI\" >Defendant No. 5 (BCCI)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Plaintiff_Essel_Sports\" >Plaintiff (Essel Sports)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Courts_Reasoning_Justice_Vipin_Sanghi\" >Court\u2019s Reasoning (Justice Vipin Sanghi)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Timing_of_Interrogatories\" >Timing of Interrogatories<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Stage_of_the_Case\" >Stage of the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Limitations_on_Use_of_Interrogatories\" >Limitations on Use of Interrogatories<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Distinguishing_the_Authorities\" >Distinguishing the Authorities<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Fairness_and_Natural_Justice\" >Fairness and Natural Justice<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interrogatories-cannot-replace-cross-examination\/#Law_Settled_by_the_Case\" >Law Settled by the Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The plaintiff alleged that BCCI engaged in unfair practices, intimidating and threatening players associated with the ICL, thereby damaging the plaintiff\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p>Later, BCCI (Defendant No. 5) filed an application under <em>Order XI CPC<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The central question before the Court was whether, at such a late stage (after completion of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence and cross-examination), BCCI could still serve interrogatories on the plaintiff about these two witnesses and their later disassociation from the company.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Submissions_by_the_Parties\"><\/span>Submissions by the Parties<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Defendant_No_5_BCCI\"><\/span>Defendant No. 5 (BCCI)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul class=\"sublist\">\n<li>Argued that Order XI CPC does not limit the timing for serving interrogatories.<\/li>\n<li>Claimed the plaintiff concealed the fact that Kapil Dev and Kiran More later disassociated from ICL.<\/li>\n<li>Contended the interrogatories were necessary for proper adjudication and relied on authorities such as:\n<ul>\n<li><em>Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.<\/em> (AIR 1968 All 601)<\/li>\n<li><em>Smt. Sharda Dhir v. Ashok Kumar Makhija<\/em> (99 (2002) DLT 350)<\/li>\n<li><em>Canara Bank v. Rajiv Tyagi<\/em> (166 (2010) DLT 523)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Plaintiff_Essel_Sports\"><\/span>Plaintiff (Essel Sports)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul class=\"sublist\">\n<li>Opposed the application as mala fide (bad faith) and an attempt to cover up deficiencies in BCCI\u2019s earlier cross-examinations.<\/li>\n<li>Argued the interrogatories were irrelevant, scandalous, and amounted to abuse of process.<\/li>\n<li>Submitted that, since the witnesses\u2019 cross-examinations had been completed years earlier, their later disassociation letters were not relevant.<\/li>\n<li>Contended BCCI was attempting to delay the trial and embark on a \u201croving inquiry.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Courts_Reasoning_Justice_Vipin_Sanghi\"><\/span>Court\u2019s Reasoning (Justice Vipin Sanghi)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Timing_of_Interrogatories\"><\/span>Timing of Interrogatories<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Stage_of_the_Case\"><\/span>Stage of the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The plaintiff\u2019s witnesses had been cross-examined and discharged years before the letters surfaced and the plaintiff\u2019s 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:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"sublist\">\n<li>Produce Kapil Dev and Kiran More as its own witnesses, or<\/li>\n<li>Seek recall of those witnesses for further cross-examination (with the Court\u2019s permission).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Limitations_on_Use_of_Interrogatories\"><\/span>Limitations on Use of Interrogatories<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Distinguishing_the_Authorities\"><\/span>Distinguishing the Authorities<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Fairness_and_Natural_Justice\"><\/span>Fairness and Natural Justice<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court dismissed BCCI\u2019s application as misconceived and unjustified, holding that interrogatories at this stage were not permissible.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"case-meta\">\n<p><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India<\/p>\n<p><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 26.08.2013<\/p>\n<p><strong>Case No.:<\/strong> CS (OS) 1566 OF 2007<\/p>\n<p><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> Delhi High Court<\/p>\n<p><strong>Hon&#8217;ble Judge:<\/strong> Shri Vipin Sanghi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"section\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_by_the_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled by the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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\u2019s permission) or produce them as one\u2019s own witnesses, rather than misuse interrogatories.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"section disclaimer\"><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"note\">The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. Readers should exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, or presentation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"section\">\n<p><strong>Written By:<\/strong> Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India \u2014 Case Summary 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,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-8443","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8443","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8443"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8443\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}