relieved of the obligation to prove to that extent. She will not be required to call witnesses. She will save great expenditure and trouble if these interrogatories are answered. It may possibly happen that the plaintiff will find that she has no need to call any witnesses. In short interrogatories are admissible which go to support the applicant's case or to impeach or destroy the opponent's case Plymouth Mutual Co-op. Society vs. Traders Publishing Association (1906) 1 LJ. 415. This means that the right to interrogate is not confined to the facts the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the facts already in issue (per Lord Esher. M.K. in Marriot vs. Chamberlain ( 1886) QBD. 154. In the case of Suthurland (Duke) v. British Dominions Land Settlement Corporation. 1926 1 C.H. 746, Mr. Justice Tomlin said that the administering of interrogatories is a step which is more often desirable than undesirable and is to be encouraged rather than to be discouraged, because they not infrequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage than otherwise would be the case, to the advantage of all parties concerned. …” (viii) This position was also most recently reiterated in Tara Batra v. Punam A. Kumar & Ors. [CM(M)No. 925/2019, decided on 10 th September, 2021] by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. In the present suit, the most important information is the details relating to the origin of the infringing copies of the copyrighted works. (ix) Even under the provisions of the IT Act, such as under Section 79(3)(b), Telegram has a duty to expeditiously remove or disable access to the unlawful material, without vitiating the evidence in any manner. In addition, under Rule 3 of the IT Guidelines, the intermediary has a duty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 43 of 51