Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4555
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. - PLAINTIFF
Versus
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. - DEFENDANT
CS(COMM) 629 of 2016
Decided On : 22-11-2017
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Chander M. Lall, Ms. Nancy Roy, Mr. Rupin Bahl
For the Defendants : Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini
The central legal point established in the judgment is that objections to evidence should not unduly delay the trial and should be addressed in a manner that aligns with the objective of speedy disposal of suits under Order XVA of the CPC.
Headnote:
Section 151 CPC - Rejection of evidence by way of affidavit - Order XVA of the CPC - speedy disposal of the suit
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed an application for rejection of evidence by way of affidavit filed by the plaintiff's witness, citing various objections. The court considered the provisions of Section 151 CPC and Order XVA of the CPC, which are aimed at ensuring speedy disposal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that objections to the affidavit should not stall the trial and lead to delays, especially when the objections could be addressed at the final stage. The court emphasized the objective of speedy disposal of suits under Order XVA of the CPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the objections raised by the defendant regarding the affidavit should be decided at an interim stage or at the final hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that objections to the affidavit should not cause delays in the trial and should be addressed at the final stage, in line with the objective of speedy disposal of suits under Order XVA of the CPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application, leaving all objections open to the defendant.
IA No. 10980/2014 (of the defendant under Section 151 CPC)
1. This application has been filed for rejection of evidence by way of affidavit filed by the plaintiffs witness.
2. The counsels have been heard.
3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant/defendant is (i) that certain portions of the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief are beyond pleadings; (ii) that additional documents have been filed along with the affidavit, without permission having been sought therefor; (iii) that portions of the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief are argumentative in nature and extracts of certain documents; (iv) that the documents are sought to be proved without complying with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and, (v) that the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief is accompanied with documents of which the witness is not the author.
4. I have enquired from the counsel for the applicant/defendant whether not as per the amended Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (see the Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC) all the said objections are not to come in the way of recording of evidence particularly when it has been ordered to be recorded before the Commissioner and the objections if any of the applicant/defendant are to be decided at the stage of final arguments.
5. The counsel for the applicant/defendant has drawn attention to Order XVA of the CPC as applicable to commercial disputes, within the meaning of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, in exercise of powers under Rule 6 whereof the Court, in a Case Management hearing, is empowered to reject any affidavit of evidence filed by the parties for containing irrelevant, inadmissible or argumentative material and to strike off any parts of the affidavit of evidence filed by the parties containing irrelevant, inadmissible or argumentative material.
6. Rule 5 of Order XVA supra provides for holding of a Case Management hearing anytime during the trial to issue appropriate orders “so as to ensure adherence by the parties to the dates fixed under Rule 2 and facilitate speedy disposal of the suit”. Thereafter in Rule 6, the powers of the Court in a Case Management hearing are listed.
7. A combined reading of Rules 5 and 6 of Order XVA of the CPC shows the same to have been devised with the objective of speedy disposal of the suit. Thus, while exercising powers vested in the Court under Rule 6 of Order XVA of the CPC, the said objective cannot be lost sight of.
8. If it is to be found that the objection, on the ground of affidavit by way of examination-in-chief containing irrelevant, inadmissible or argumentative material, taken is not such which prejudices the cross-examining party and which objection is more properly dealt with at the time of final hearing of the suit, the Court ought not to stall the trial and hold a mini trial, going into the respective contentions of the parties as to the relevancy and admissibility of the portions of the affidavit. Any such adjudication at an interim stage on the said aspects may lead to appeals there against and which would ultimately result in delaying the disposal of suit and not expediting the hearing of the suit which as aforesaid is the objective of Rule 5 of Order XVA of the CPC.
9. The applicant/defendant, during the hearing, has not pointed out any prejudice which would be caused and in fact has rather herself stated that she would have her objection recorded and will not cross-examine the witness on the said aspect.
10. The counsel for the applicant/defendant during the hearing has drawn attention to the judgment dated 7th April, 2014 of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Suit No. 3598/1996 titled Harish Loyalka Vs. Dileep Nevatia. However, on enquiry whether the same considers Order XVIII Rule 4(4) of the CPC, the counsel for the applicant/defendant though initially stated that it has not but now states that it has been referred to in para no.11 of the judgment
