(1)  A party may interrogate any opposite party to obtain –

(a) an admission of any fact which the party interrogating is required to prove on an issue against the opposite party; or

(b) an answer as to –

(i) any fact directly in issue between the parties; or

(ii) any fact, the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the existence or non-existence of any fact directly in issue between the parties; or

(c) any fact, knowledge of which would inform the party interrogating of evidence of any fact directly in issue between the parties; or

(d) the name and address of any person who would be a necessary or proper party to the proceeding, if that information is required to make that person a party to the proceeding; or

(e) any other fact as to which discovery may have been obtained in a suit in equity before the commencement of the Act.

(2)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  

(3)  An interrogatory which does not relate to any matter in question in the proceeding is irrelevant, even though it might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness.

(4)  This rule does not give a party the right to interrogate an opposite party with a view to finding out –

(a) a case for the party interrogating; or

(b) the name of any person intended to be called or who might be called by the opposite party as a witness and whose name is not a material fact in the proceeding; or

(c) the evidence of the opposite party; or

(d) the manner in which the opposite party intends to establish their case; or

(e) the line of facts, not being facts directly in issue, on which the opposite party intends to rely in support of their case; or

(f) the manner in which the opposite party intends to conduct the case at the trial.

(5)  The fact that a party who is otherwise bound to answer an interrogatory is not able to do so without disclosing the evidence or name of a person who might be called as a witness does not excuse the party from answering the interrogatory.