ought to face consequences in accordance with law, including being held liable for damages. That would not be possible if the source of such infringing copies, i.e., the details of the infringing channels are not disclosed. Pertinently, such production of details of infringing devices or persons or other sources, is not a comment on Telegram’s liability and does not derogate from safe harbour provisions. In fact, it is aligned with the view of Telegram’s claimed role as an intermediary, which claims to act as a conduit of information. (vii) Disclosure of such information is relevant and material to the present case, contrary to what is pleaded by Telegram in its reply. Even applying the broad principles of Order XI CPC, the Court can direct disclosure of documents and information relating to ‘any matter in question in a suit’. The Delhi High Court in A.K. Aggarwal v. Shanti Devi [CM(M) Appeal No.154 and 155 of 1995, decided on 17th October, 1995], held that seeking interrogatories must be encouraged: “4. Order XI of the CPC, contains salutary provision which are intended to curtail evidence thereby expediting trial of suit and as such their provisions are very useful. They have to be liberally used and parties have to be encouraged to use them in the course of trial. The provision of Order XI, Civil Procedure Code do not deserve a technical or truncated approach. Ultimately the use of these provisions saves time of the Court and costs of litigation to the parties. "Jessel M.R. in Attorney-General vs. Gashill (1882) 20 Ch. 519, said: "Now, one of the great objects of interrogatories when properly administered has always been to save evidence, that is to diminish Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 41 of 51