1989 (9) TMI 383 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Omission of witness' signature on deposition recorded on commission.
2. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of Special Leave Petitions.
3. Construction of Rule 4 of Chapter XXII of the Calcutta High Court Rules, 1914.

Summary:

1. Omission of Witness' Signature on Deposition:
The main issue was whether the omission of the witness' signature on his deposition, as required by Rule 4 of Chapter XXII of the Calcutta High Court Rules, 1914, is a defect fatal to the reception of the deposition in evidence, even when its correctness and authenticity are undisputed. The Calcutta High Court had held this defect to be fatal, excluding the entire oral evidence of the defendants recorded on commission, leading to the suit being decreed in favor of the plaintiffs on unrebutted testimony.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in excluding the depositions of the appellants' witnesses recorded on commission. The Court concluded that the requirement of the witness' signature is directory, not mandatory, and substantial compliance is sufficient when the correctness and authenticity of the deposition are undisputed. The omission of the witness' signature does not render the deposition invalid if the correctness and authenticity are not contested.

2. Preliminary Objection Regarding Maintainability of Special Leave Petitions:
Shri M.K. Ramamurthi raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the first Special Leave Petition was infructuous after the decision of the suit and that the second Special Leave Petition circumvented the statutory internal appeal under the Letters Patent. The Supreme Court decided to grant leave and address the merits directly, emphasizing pragmatism and the need to shorten the protracted litigation.

3. Construction of Rule 4 of Chapter XXII of the Calcutta High Court Rules, 1914:
The Court analyzed Rule 4, which mandates that the deposition be read over, signed by the witness, and left with the Commissioner. The Court determined that while the essential requirements of recording, reading over, and correcting the deposition are mandatory, the requirement of the witness' signature is directory. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure should serve the cause of justice and not obstruct it. The omission of the witness' signature, when the correctness and authenticity are undisputed, should be treated as an insignificant omission.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, and directed that the suit be decided afresh by the learned single Judge, treating the depositions of the appellants' witnesses recorded on commission as evidence in the suit. The Court expressed hope for a quick resolution of the dispute and directed the parties to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed.