The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of evidence and the qualification of expert witnesses, emphasizing the need for trial to progress without interruption by interlocutory applications.

1. Sole applicant herein is the lone defendant in the main suit. Lone respondent herein is the sole plaintiff in the main suit. Parties in this application are referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit, i.e., C.S.No.405 of 2014 for the sake of convenience and clarity. The applicant herein besides being referred to as defendant is also being referred to as 'Lehry' wherever it is deemed necessary. Equally, the plaintiff is also being referred to as 'RB' wherever necessary.

2. Besides the aforesaid suit C.S.No.405 of 2014 in which the instant application which is being disposed of by this order, i.e., A.No.8007 of 2017 has been taken out, there is one more later suit which is referred to as second suit.

3. The second suit is C.S.No.891 of 2015 and the same has been filed by 'Lehry' against 'RB'. This second suit has been tagged with C.S.No.405 of 2014. To be noted, C.S.No.405 of 2014 has been filed by 'RB' with prayers for injunction against 'Lehry' qua passing off with other usual prayers for accounts, damages and cost. There is also mandatory injunction prayer directing defendant to disclose the identity with full particulars of the manufacturer of alleged counterfeit product, but it is not necessary to delve into all these aspects of the matter considering the limited scope of this application.

4. For the sake of completing the facts, suffice to say that the second suit, i.e. C.S.No.891 of 2015 has been filed by 'Lehry' seeking a declaration that termination of dealership by 'RB' is bad. There is also a money claim regarding redelivery of imported goods imported by 'Lehry' from 'RB'. There is also a prayer for permanent injunction qua publication of defamatory allegations, besides claims for damages and cost. However, as mentioned supra, it is not necessary to delve into these aspects considering the limited scope of this application. Even these facts are being set out here only for the sake of completing the narration of bare minimum facts necessary for a broad understanding of the nature of the litigation.

5. The entire lis in a nutshell is as follows :

(i) RB claims that it is a manufacturer of various kinds of valves.

(ii) Lehry is one of RB's major associates in India since 2005, wherein and whereby Lehry was purchasing valves from RB and selling them in Indian markets.

(iii) RB sometime in May 2014 came to know from a complaint from an Indian company about substandard quality in some of its products.

(iv) It is the case of RB that on enquiring further about substandard valve complaint, it came to light that Lehry has been importing substandard valves from China and selling the same in Indian markets by using RB's trademark.

(v) In the second suit, Lehry while denying the aforesaid allegation has claimed that there is a dealership agreement between RB and Lehry and that the same was wrongfully terminated in bad faith.

6. As far as the stage of the suit is concerned, pleadings have been completed, issues have been framed and trial is under way. RB has commenced the trial. Two witnesses, namely P.W.1 and P.W.2 have already been examined. Now, RB has examined P.W.3 in chief. When I say RB has examined P.W.3 in chief, a proof affidavit of P.W.3 dated 30.11.2017 has been filed. To be noted, P.W.3 is one Vincent Jose, who is described as Director in one Insta Quest Consulting Pvt. Ltd. with office in Noida. This Insta Quest Consulting Pvt. Ltd. is said to be an investigator whose services were deployed by RB pending suit.

7. The instant application, i.e., A.No.8007 of 2017 has been taken out by Lehry with a prayer to eschew the entire proof affidavit of P.W.3.

8. To be noted, the instant application has been filed on 04.12.2017, that very day on which Commercial Division was notified in this Hon'ble Court. The prayer for eschew has been made by invoking Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for brevity). However, after notification of Commercial Division in this Hon'ble Court on 04.12.2017, it is not ne