the burden of proof which was otherwise on the plaintiff. Their object is not merely to discover facts which will inform the plaintiff as to evidence to be obtained, but also to save the expense of proving a part on the case. Cotton L.T., J, said: Interrogatories are “not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge on that which he does not already know but include the getting an admission of anything which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the defendant.” (5) My attention has been drawn to a judgment of this Court in 0. S. No. 4 & 5 of 15730 entitled Suresh Chand vs. KM. Vinay Devi etc. decided on 14.9.73. Unfortunately I am informed that this judgment has not been reported though it is an illuminating judgment so far as the provisions of Order XI Civil Procedure Code . are concerned. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the said judgment to quote : 'A party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of everything which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. The object is to obtain an admission from the opponent which will make the burden of proof easier than it otherwise would have been. The purpose is to get from the defendant an admission of that which no doubt he denied by his defense but not on oath. About the fact of the parentage of the appellant Suresh Chand a fact which is within the knowledge and an admission of it by him must obviously save enormous amount of expense at the trial. Lindley L. J. in the case of Attorney- General (supra) said : "It is no reason for declining to answer the interrogatories to say that the same information may be got by crossexam, at the trial". If the appellants answer the question regarding parentage and the Will of the deceased Thakur Dass, the plaintiff would be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 42 of 51