2011 (3) TMI 1841 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Expunging of certain paragraphs in the plaintiff's affidavit.
2. Admissibility of additional documents filed with the affidavit.
3. Delay tactics by the defendants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Expunging of Certain Paragraphs in the Plaintiff's Affidavit:
The defendant filed an application under Section 151 seeking the expunging of certain paragraphs in the plaintiff's affidavit, arguing that these paragraphs were beyond the pleadings. The plaintiff countered by stating that the Evidence Act permits the production of evidence related to 'relevant facts' and not just the 'fact in issue'. The court noted that the relevancy and admissibility of evidence should be determined by the Local Commissioner during the recording of evidence. The court emphasized that objections to the affidavit should be recorded by the Local Commissioner and adjudicated at the final argument stage. The court agreed with the defendants that a fact not pleaded cannot be proved but also highlighted that evidence related to relevant facts is permissible under Sections 5 to 55 of the Evidence Act.

2. Admissibility of Additional Documents Filed with the Affidavit:
The defendants argued that additional documents filed with the plaintiff's affidavit were neither relied upon earlier nor had permission been sought from the court to place them on record. The court referred to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, which allows documents to be filed with the court's leave at a later date. The court noted that the mere filing of documents along with an affidavit does not automatically render them admissible. The admissibility of such documents should be determined by the Local Commissioner, and objections should be recorded for adjudication at the final argument stage.

3. Delay Tactics by the Defendants:
The plaintiff contended that the application was filed by the defendants to delay the disposal of the case. The court observed that the purpose of conducting examination-in-chief by way of affidavit is to expedite the recording of evidence and minimize delays. The court found that the application was indeed dilatory and vexatious, aiming to delay the cross-examination process. The court dismissed the application with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on the defendants.

Conclusion:
The application filed by the defendants was dismissed. The court emphasized that objections regarding the affidavit and additional documents should be recorded by the Local Commissioner and adjudicated at the final argument stage. The court also noted that the application was a delay tactic and imposed a cost on the defendants.