An expert in foreign law is entitled to express an opinion as to what the law is, but not apply that law to the facts before the Court. The Court has the power to strike off portions of the expert's evidence that go beyond the proper scope of expert evidence on a point of foreign law.

1. The present Notice of Motion has been filed by the abovenamed Plaintiffs for expunging/striking off parts of the Affidavit of Evidence in Lieu of Examination-In-Chief of the Defendants’ Witness – Mr. Patrick Keel, wherein he states that he is “making this Affidavit as an expert in Texas civil law”. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs is based on their contention that Mr. Keel has not confined his evidence to what the Texas Law is, but has proceeded to apply that law. In other words, in the present Notice of Motion, the Plaintiffs raise an issue as to the proper scope of expert evidence on a point of foreign law. This issue arises in the following circumstances:

(a) The Plaintiffs are seeking to enforce a Judgment dated 21st September 2010 of the District Court, 14th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas, U.S.A. (“Texas Court”) in Case No. 09-15036 (“Texas Case”) directing the Defendants, jointly or severally, to pay the Plaintiffs a sum of USD 7.5 million. The Defendants have sought to resist the enforcement of that Judgment on various grounds including, inter alia, a plea that the Texas Court did not have jurisdiction over the Defendants and, consequently to render the Judgment of which the Plaintiffs seek enforcement.

(b) The Plaintiffs in support of their case examined two Witnesses, one Mr. Lawrence L. Mealer and one Mr. Gregory G. Jones. Both Mr. Mealer and Mr. Jones are lawyers licensed to practice in the State of Texas. In addition, Mr. Mealer was also the Attorney who acted on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the Texas Case in which the Judgment dated 21st September 2010 came to be passed. Both Mr. Mealer and Mr. Jones offered evidence in their capacity as experts on Texas Law on the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Defendants. The Defendants raised certain preliminary objections as to the relevancy and admissibility of the evidence of Mr. Mealer and Mr. Jones. These objections were ruled upon and both Witnesses were thereafter extensively cross-examined.

(c) On the Plaintiffs closing their case, the Defendants offered their first Witness, Mr. Patrick Keel. Mr. Keel is also an attorney licensed to practice, amongst others in the State of Texas. He also appears at one point to have served as the Judge of the 345th District Court of Travis County, Texas. Mr. Keel has himself no personal connection with the proceedings before the Texas Court which resulted in the Judgment in question. He has been offered by the Defendants as an expert on Texas Law.

(d) When the Affidavit in Lieu of Examination in Chief of Mr. Keel was tendered across the Bar on 14th July, 2015, Mr. Khambata, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, took exception to certain portions of his Affidavit as being inadmissible. The Plaintiffs, thereafter, filed the present Notice of Motion articulating those objections, which Notice of Motion is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. Both parties have addressed me at length on the issue of admissibility and filed Written Submissions with respect to their case.

3. It is the Plaintiffs’ case:

(a) That an expert on a point of foreign law must confine his evidence to what the foreign law is, and ought not to go further and apply that law to the facts of the case in which he is deposing. That task according to the Plaintiffs, is that of the Court alone. In support of this proposition, the Plaintiffs have relied on various Judgments including inter alia, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors. (AIR 2010 SC 806), the Judgment of the Privy Council in Florence A. Deeks v. H.G. Wells & Ors. 1933 (The Law Weekly 314), the Judgment of the Madras High Court in N.P.L. Palaniappa Chetty v. N.M.R. Nagappa Chettiar (AIR 1930 Mad 146) and the Judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pr