Objections on admissibility of documents in suit should be decided during final hearing, Gujarat High Court

Justice AJ Desai of the Gujarat High Court recently held that the objections taken by the parties during the recording of evidence with regard to the admissibility of documents should be decided at the stage of hearing final arguments in the suit. .The ruling was passed in a commercial suit filed by an Israeli based company, Galatea Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented technology in diamond scanning machines. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and others. .Factual Background.Galatea Ltd. filed a patent infringement suit against certain entities based in Surat which, according to Galatea, infringe its patented technology. On February 19, a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court directed that evidence of the parties be recorded expeditiously. .After the recording of evidence, the defendants in the said commercial suit filed two applications praying that the objections raised by them during the course of recording of evidence may be decided before the suit is taken up for final arguments. .Arguments advanced before the Court .The main contention raised by the defendants was that in the event any of their objections is not upheld by the Court or the Court comes to a conclusion that the defendants have failed to prove any particular document, then the defendants ought to be granted further opportunity to lead additional evidence to either prove its case or the document sought to be relied upon by them. .It was further argued by the defendants that in the event the objections are decided at the stage of final arguments, it would not be possible for them to lead additional evidence..In response, it was argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that if such an approach is followed, then the trial in any suit would never come to an end. It was pointed out that every time a document or fact is decided by the Court as ‘not proved’, the aggrieved party would want to lead further evidence. It was also argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that such an approach is contrary to the decision of a three-Judge bench of Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal, where the Supreme Court had, inter alia, held as follows:.“… It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the Court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection…. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings.“.The Supreme Court had, instead, directed that the following procedure be followed by Trial Courts, whenever objects are raised regarding the admissibility of evidence. .“Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided “at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it-clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed).”.The Apex Court had also explained the advantages that would follow if this practice is adopted..“The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial Court, during the evidence taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the Court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior Court, when the same objection is recanvassed a reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial Court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial Court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial Court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery of expenses.” .It was argued by Galatea that the decision in Bipin Shantilal Panchal will squarely apply to the facts of the present case since the principles of the Evidence Act apply to criminal as well as civil cases. .Issues before the Court.The main issues that came to be decided by the Court were .At what stage of the proceedings such objections taken by the parties during the recording of evidence should be decided by the Court, and Whether the principles as laid down in Bipin Shantilal Panchal would apply in the present case..What the Gujarat High Court held.By a detailed order dated November 21, 2019, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the two applications filed by the defendants and held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and others holds the field on this issue, and the decision in Bipin Shantilal Panchal shall apply to the present case. .The Court, following the law laid down in Bipin Shantilal’s, held that all the objections raised by either of the parties shall have to be decided at the time of the final hearing in the suit. .Galatea Ltd. was represented by a team from Ortis Law Offices comprising Sandeep Grover, Ishwer Upneja, Pankhuri Bhardwaj and Vara Gaur, Dilip B. Rana, Advocate on record, led by Senior Advocates Yatin Oza and Neeraj Malhotra. .Defendants were represented by Senior Advocate SN Soparkar, briefed by Advocates Tarun Khurana, Rishabh Nigam and Mana A Shah. .[Read the order]