2007 (7) TMI 705 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refusal to grant interim stay by the High Court.
2. Striking out portions of written statements and affidavit evidence.
3. Amendment of the plaint.

Summary:

1. Refusal to Grant Interim Stay by the High Court:
The Supreme Court addressed the refusal of the High Court to grant an interim stay on the trial court's orders. The High Court had admitted the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but declined to stay the suit or the operation of the orders. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while it is not typical to interfere with interim orders of the High Court, there are exceptional cases where intervention is warranted. The Court emphasized that granting a stay would not influence the High Court's independent judgment on the merits of the case.

2. Striking Out Portions of Written Statements and Affidavit Evidence:
The trial court had struck out specific paragraphs from the written statements of defendants 11, 12, and 13, and portions of the plaintiff's chief-examination affidavit. The Supreme Court found it justified to stay the operation of these orders to avoid inconvenience and potential confusion in the trial. The Court noted that if the High Court later accepts the challenge to these orders, it would prevent the need to recall witnesses and re-examine them on the struck-out aspects. The Court clarified that the relevance and admissibility of evidence would ultimately be determined based on the High Court's decision and the trial court's final judgment.

3. Amendment of the Plaint:
The plaintiff's application to amend the plaint was dismissed by the trial court, and the High Court refused to stay this order. The Supreme Court saw no reason to stay the operation of the order refusing the amendment, as the amendment would only come into effect if the High Court found it justified. The Court highlighted that the trial should proceed without impediment and that the High Court should expedite the disposal of the writ petitions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court modified the High Court's orders slightly, allowing the trial to continue while staying the operation of the orders striking out portions of the written statements and affidavit evidence. The Court directed the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions promptly and emphasized that the trial court should consider the admissibility of evidence based on the High Court's eventual decision. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.