CS(COMM) 169/2018Page 1 of 8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 1^st September, 2022.

+

CS(COMM) 169/2018

LEVITATE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Abhimanyu Garg and Ms. Preety

Makkar, Advocates

versus

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ANR ..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Amol Sharma and Ms. Jagriti

Ahuja, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

I.A. 13101/2019 (of the defendant u/O-XIX R-4 to 6 of CPC)

1.

The present suit has been filed on behalf of Levitate Mobile

Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff, seeking recovery of Rs.4,46,50,000/-

with interest.

2.

Summons in the suit were issued on 30^th May, 2015. The issues in the

suit were framed vide order dated 16^th November, 2016. The affidavit of

evidence of plaintiff‟s witnesses were filed on 30^th November, 2018 and 23^rd

January, 2019.

3.

On 5^th September, 2019, the present application has been filed on

behalf of the defendant under Order XIX Rule 4 to 6 read with Order XVA

Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as applicable to

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003431

CS(COMM) 169/2018Page 2 of 8

commercial suits. By way of this application, the defendant has taken

objection to the evidence by way of affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff‟s

witness, Mr. Sunil Jasuja on the ground that the said affidavit contains

material which is irrelevant, inadmissible and argumentative. For the

convenience of this Court, the defendant has highlighted the averments

made in the affidavit in the following manner:

(i)

Averments which are irrelevant (beyond the pleadings) as per the

defendant have been highlighted in red colour.

(ii)

Averments which are not admissible as per the defendant have been

highlighted in green colour.

(iii)Averments which are argumentative (in the nature of legal

submissions) as per the defendant have been highlighted in blue

colour.

4.

To a query from the Court as to what is meant by „irrelevant‟, counsel

for the defendant submits that „irrelevant‟ means that the plaintiff is seeking

to prove the contents of the documents, which are part of the record of case,

which is impermissible in terms of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act.

5.

Counsel for the defendant has drawn attention of this Court to

provisions of Order XIX Rules, 4, 5 and 6 as well as Order XVA Rule 6 of

the CPC as applicable to commercial suits, within the meaning of

Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate

Division of High Courts Act, 2015.

6.

Order XV A Rule 6 (m) and (n) of the CPC is set out below:

“6.

Court shall have the power to –

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003431

CS(COMM) 169/2018Page 3 of 8

material;”

7.

Order XIX Rules 4, 5 and 6(a) and (b) are set out below:

or such parts of the affidavit, as it deems fit and proper”

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003431

CS(COMM) 169/2018Page 4 of 8

8.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff vehemently opposes the

said application and submits that there is no merit in the objections raised by

the defendant with regard to admissibility and relevancy of the averments

made in the affidavit.

9.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff places reliance on the

judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Reckitt Benckiser (India)

Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11928. In the said

case, similar objections were raised on behalf of the defendant with regard to

affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the plaintiff in a commercial suit.

After analysing provisions of Order XV A, Rules 5 and 6 of the CPC, this

Court held as under:

“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