2010 (1) TMI 1315 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Contestation of suit for specific performance of agreement of sale
- Objection to portions of affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief
- Power of the Court to delete portions of an affidavit
- Consideration of objections raised by the petitioner
- Duty of the Court in dealing with objections during final hearing

Analysis:
The petitioner, an original plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, which was contested by the respondent-defendant. After the petitioner presented evidence, the respondent submitted an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The petitioner objected to certain statements in the affidavit, claiming they should be deleted as they were previously rejected when the respondent sought to amend the written statement. The trial Court, relying on precedent, held it lacked the power to order deletion of portions of the affidavit (paragraphs 1-2).

The petitioner argued that objections to objectionable portions of an affidavit can be raised in writing, citing a Supreme Court case. The petitioner contended that the trial Court should have considered the objections raised in the application, which was akin to raising objections in writing. The respondent, however, asserted that the Court had no authority to delete any part of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief (paragraphs 3-4).

The High Court examined the Supreme Court decision cited by the petitioner, emphasizing that objections in writing should be considered at the final hearing of the suit. The Court clarified that while objections could not lead to the deletion of portions of the affidavit, the Court could disregard objectionable parts while deciding the case. The Court highlighted the objective of expediting trials and avoiding lengthy examinations-in-chief (paragraphs 5-8).

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the trial Court's decision regarding the lack of power to delete portions of the affidavit. However, it directed that the petitioner's application be treated as a written objection to be considered during the final hearing of the suit. The Court left all contentions on the objections open for further consideration by the trial Court (paragraphs 9-10).

In conclusion, the High Court confirmed the rejection of the prayer to strike out paragraphs of the affidavit but directed that the petitioner's application be treated as a written objection to be evaluated during the final hearing of the suit, keeping all contentions open. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly (paragraph 11).