Waqf Tribunal Has Power To Order Interrogatories Under Order 9 Rule 1 CPC: Kerala High Court

"Section 30 of the Code confers jurisdiction on the court to make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories... This power is wide enough to make the court competent to direct any party to answer interrogatories at any time." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 6, 2026, affirmed that Waqf Tribunals possess the jurisdiction to order the delivery of interrogatories under Order 9 Rule 1 of the CPC.

A division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. held that by virtue of Section 83(5) of the Waqf Act, 1995, the Tribunal is a civil court and is empowered to invoke provisions of the Code to ensure the fair adjudication of disputes.

Procedural Powers Of The Tribunal

The dispute arose when the Kerala State Waqf Board challenged orders passed by the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, which had allowed applicants to deliver interrogatories to the Board. The Board contended that the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 CPC were applicable only to suits and that, in any event, such applications were premature as the pleadings were not complete. The High Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the Tribunal's power to direct discovery is derived from Section 30 of the Code, which is exercisable at any stage of the proceedings.

Interrogatories To Shorten Litigation

The Court underscored that the object of interrogatories is to obtain admissions of facts relevant to the matters in question, thereby reducing the burden of proof and shortening litigation. The bench observed that the administration of interrogatories is a step that should be encouraged rather than discouraged, as it often brings actions to an end at an earlier stage than would otherwise be possible.

"The power to serve interrogatories is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally, whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice."

Relevance And Scope Of Discovery

The Court noted that while interrogatories must be confined to relevant facts, the discretion lies with the Tribunal to determine necessity. The bench clarified that the power under Order XI is not restricted by technicalities; provided the questions relate to 'matters in question' and are not vexatious or irrelevant, they must be allowed. The Court highlighted that even a corporation or statutory body like the Waqf Board is not immune to such discovery when the information sought is material for the fair adjudication of the case.

Distinction From Fishing Enquiries

The ruling emphasized that courts must balance the need for discovery against the risk of abuse. While interrogatories cannot be used to gather facts constituting exclusively the evidence of the adversary or to "fish" for a new cause of action, they are vital for maintaining one's own case or destroying the opponent's. The High Court found that in the present case, the applicants were seeking information regarding mandatory procedural compliance under the Waqf Act, which was directly relevant to the merits of their challenge against the Board’s order.

Dismissal Of Appeals

Finding no illegality in the Tribunal’s orders, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Kerala State Waqf Board. The Court granted the Board one month to comply with the directions to answer the interrogatories, affirming that the Tribunal’s proactive approach served the interest of justice and the efficient administration of the Waqf Act.

Date of Decision: 06 October 2026

Bench: Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S.

Date of decision: 06/10/2026