K K JOHNY Vs. K P JAMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the correct procedure to be followed when a court receives proof (chief) affidavit When and at what stage is the court to consider the objections raised to the marking of the documents in such affidavit If there has been a delay in considering the objections and giving a ruling thereon, does that confer on a party the right to reopen the evidence and further examine/cross-examine a witness These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration incidentally in this Writ Petition.

(2.) A reference to the facts first. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for injunction against passing off. Ext.P10 is the plaint. Against an interim order passed in that suit, C M.A.No. 1/01 was filed before this Court and by Ext.P2 judgment the said C MA was disposed of with specific directions to dispose of the suit within a stipulated time frame. Ext.P3 is the written statement filed by the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff and his witness were examined and the plaintiff's evidence was closed. The defendant examined himself as DW. 1. He filed an affidavit of proof (now popularly referred to as the chief affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. Exts.D1 to D79 and M.Os.1 to 44 were shown as marked in such affidavit. The defendant was to be cross-examined.

(3.) The plaintiff raised an objection that some of the documents and material objects referred to in the chief-affidavit do not deserve admission at all and some of them have to be further proved. He filed Ext.P4 written objections. Those objections were filed even before the cross-examination commenced. Ext P5 objections was filed by the defendant to Ext.P4. The court gave a ruling on the objections as per Ext.P6 order dated 6/7/2005.