125. Any party called upon to answer interrogatories, whether by himself or by any such member or officer, may refuse to Power to strike out answer any interrogatory on the ground that it is interrogatories as irreirrelevant, or is not put bonâ fide for the purposes of levant, &c. the suit, or that the matter inquired after is not sufficiently material at that stage of the suit, or on any other like ground.

Under the English rule Lely and Foulkes have given the following notes. This rule supplies the process for taking objection to interrogatories formerly taken in Chancery upon exceptions or demurrer to interrogatories, and at law upon the application for leave to interrogate. The grounds of objection maintainable in Chancery are applicable rather than those urged at law (Lush, J., at Chambers, in Ramsden v. Brearley, W. N. 1875, p. 199), inasmuch as no order for interrogatories is now required, and the judge before striking out an interrogatory must be satisfied that it is objectionable, so that the interrogating party has a primâ facie right to an answer. (See also note to Rule 12.) The words "on any other ground" give the judge a wide discretion, but the well-known canon of construction that such general words must be taken to be ejusdem generis with those particularly mentioned would seem to apply.

It is believed that there is no reported decision in court since the act as to the nature of the change, if any, effected by the act on the admissibility of interrogatories. In chambers several judges have expressed opinions that no further license ought to be permitted than before the act; and the court would not as a general rule interfere with the discretion of the judge.

The plaintiff in an action for libel in a newspaper may ask the defendant if he is the printer or publisher or both. (Ramsden v. Brearley, supra.) As to asking for particulars of trust deed, see Mansfield v. Childerhouse, 46 L. J., Ch. 30; 35 L. T., 590.

Irrelevant.-The English rule has it scandalous or irrelevant.' For the meaning of the latter term we must, I imagine, go to the Evidence Act.

Any other like ground.-The word like' is important. See the head-notes.

It will be observed that the proviso in Sec. 127 precludes the judge from requiring answers that need not have been answered

under this section, and apparently in considering whether an interrogatory does or does not need not an answer, the judge will look to the objections mentioned in this section and to no others. If so the practice prescribed for India will differ from the English in a very important particular, as to which see the notes below Sec. 127.

126. Interrogatories shall be answered by affidavit to be filed in Time for filing affi. Court within ten days from the service thereof or within such further time as the Judge may allow.

davit in answer.

127. If any person interrogated omits or refuses to answer, or answers insufficiently, any interrogatory, the party interrogatProcedure where a ing may apply to the Court for an order requiring party omits to answer him to answer or to answer further, as the case may sufficiently. be. And an order may be made requiring him to answer or to answer further either by affidavit or by vivâ voce examination as the Judge may direct: Provided that the Judge shall not require an answer to any interrogatory which in his opinion need not have been answered under Sec. 125.

This section refers only to refusals to answer based upon Sec. 125, and nothing in this Chapter contained corresponds to Rule 8 of the English Order XXXI which runs as follows: "Any objection to answering any interrogatory may be taken, and the ground thereof stated in the affidavit." Under that Lely and Foulkes observe: "This rule gives an interrogated party another mode of objecting to interrogatories besides that given by Rule 5. This mode of objecting should be adopted when the objection takes the form that the answer would criminate the interrogated party or disclose his title and so forth."

Under the English Rules, therefore, there are two modes of objecting to interrogatories, namely:

(1.) A party interrogated may apply at once (under Rule 5) to strike out interrogatories, because bad in themsleves.

(2.) He may object (in his answer by affidavit) upon grounds personal to himself.

In the present Code no provision appears to have been made for taking objections of the second class, and I fear that much difficulty may be felt in dealing with them when taken. The Legislature would seem to have overlooked the force and effect of Rule 8 as a supplement to Rule 5.

Provided.-See the notes to Sec. 125.

128. Either party may, by a notice through the Court, within a reasonable time not less than ten days before the hearing, require the other party to admit (saving all just exceptions to the admissibility of such document in evidence) the genuineness of any document material to the suit.

Power to demand admission of genuineness of documents.

The admission shall also be made in writing, signed by the other party or his pleader and filed in Court.

If such notice be not given, no costs of proving such document shall be allowed, unless the Judge otherwise orders.

If such notice is not complied with within four days after its being served, and the Judge thinks it reasonable that the admission should have been made, the party refusing shall bear the expense of proving such document, whatever may be the result of the suit.

This is substantially identical with Rule 2 of the English Order XXXII, which reproduces Sec. 117 of the C. L. P. Act, 1852.

The English courts used to make rules for the reading deeds or other instruments without proof of execution; and by rule H. T. 4 William 4, a judge at chambers might consent to order the admission in evidence of documents upon notice given in due form.

No. 29 of the R. G., H. T., 1853, gives a form of notice to admit, which shows that the following things alone are to be admitted, namely, "that such of the said documents as are specified to be originals were respectively written, signed, or executed, as the purport respectively to have been; that such as are specified as copies, are true copies; and such documents as are stated to have been served, sent, or delivered, were so served, sent, or delivered, respectively, saving all just exceptions to the admissibility of all such documents as evidence in this cause."

Such an admission by a party touching a document will be a waiver of any objection to interlineation in it, for as it prevents the necessity of calling the attesting witness, it should also prevent the taking of any objection which such a person could remove. Freeman v. Steggal, 19 L. J., Q. B., 18. But a party admitting his handwriting to a bill is not precluded from objecting to its admissibility in evidence on the ground of its being unstamped. Vane v. Whittington, 2 Dowl, N. S., 757. And the admission that the copy is a true copy will not dispense with the necessity of accounting for the non-production of the original, before the copy can be admitted in

evidence. Sharpe v. Lambe, 11 A. & E., 805. See further upon the effect of admissions, Hawk v. Frennd, 1 F. & F., 294, and Hills v. London Gas Light Company, 1 F. & F., 346.

To enable a party safely to admit a document produced by an opponent it will of course be necessary to allow him inspection of the same, and in some cases time to consider whether he will best serve his interests by admitting. The following is a noteworthy extract from the judgment in (Madras) Regular Appeal No. 33 of 1866, namely:-In this case there has been no trial. No issues were framed and the judgment was given upon some documents which do not appear to have been either proved or admitted. It is of great consequence that at the period of the issues being framed, the documents filed with the plaint should be produced and either admitted or denied. By this course, the suit at the trial will be relieved of all unnecessary matter. In the issue paper, moreover, the facts of such admissions should invariably be recorded.

129. The Court Application for order for discovery of docu

may, at any time during the pendency therein of any suit, order any party to the suit to declare by affidavit all the documents which are or have been in his possesment. sion or power relating to any matter in question in the suit, and any party to the suit may, at any time before the first hearing, apply to the Court for a like order. Every affidavit made under this section shall specify which, if any, of the Affidavit in answer documents therein mentioned the declarant objects to produce, together with the grounds of such objection.

to such order.

Observe that this section requires an order of the court, unlike Sec. 121, q. v.

This section is a substantial reproduction of Rules 12 & 13 of the English Order XXXI, under which Lely and Foulkes give these

notes.

No particular document need be named, nor need the nature of the documents be stated (Quain, J., at Chambers, Bitt. p. 44); but discovery will not be granted unless the documents are such as are allowed to be inspected. (Lush, J., at Chambers, in Mattock v. Heath, Bitt. p. 11.)

Discovery has been granted after issue joined. (Archibald, J., at Chambers, Bitt. p. 91.)

The old bill for discovery lay in aid of a proceeding in another Court (Mit. Plead. 148; Hare on Disc., ed. 2, p. 80), and an action is said still to lie, independently, in aid of a proceeding in the High Court. (Per Hall, V. C., in Orr v. Diaper, 35 L. T., 92; 25 W. R., 23; L. R., 4 Ch. D., 92; 46 L. J., Ch. 41.)

Discovery may now be granted by all divisions of the High Court in all cases in which a bill for discovery lay in the Court of Chancery. (Per Lush, J., at Chambers, in Ramsden v. Brearley, W. N., 1875, p. 199, affirmed in Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, infra, and see Bustros v. White, infra.)

The decision of a judge at chambers is final as to any documents submitted to him. (Bustros v. White, infra.)

It has been held by eight judges in the Court of Appeal, that no document is privileged from production on the ground of professional privilege, unless it be a communication from the party's solicitor, or from an agent employed by or at the instance of such solicitor. (Bustros v. White, L. R., I. Q. B. D., 422; 45 L. J., Q. B., 642; 34 L T., 835; 24 W. R., 721. See, too, Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, L. R., 2. Ch. D., 644 (C. A.); 45 L. J., Ch. 449; 24 W. R., 624.) As to the other grounds of privilege, viz., tendency to criminate, irrelevancy to the action, and relation solely to an apponent's case, see Morgan's Acts and Orders, 5th ed. p. 517; Hare on Disc., Part III.

In the possession or power.-Notice to produce is proper whereever the instrument is in the hands of the party himself, or of his attorney or agent, or of some person whose possession is in law the possession of the party. See Whitford v. Tutin, 10 Bing. 395. Thus a cheque drawn by him and cashed may be called for by notice, though it may be in the bankers hands, and there is no necessity to call on the banker to produce it. Partridge v. Coates, Ry. & M., 156. Where the defendant, a shipowner, had given an order to the captain to deliver some goods to the plaintiff, it was holden that notice to the defendant to produce such order was sufficient to let in secondary evidence thereof, because the captain was his agent, although the latter was entitled to hold the order as his authority. Baldney v. Ritchie, 1 Stark., 338. And if a document be traced to the posses