In the above Admiralty Suit No.
No amendment or companyrection was suggested in the deposition by either of the parties.
The respondents plaintiffs in the suit evidence was companycluded on February 23, 1987.
sd A.K. Auddy.
The Commissioner settled the minutes in a meeting with companynsel for parties in which the depositions recorded on companymission were admitted to be companyrect and companynsel for the parties signed the minutes in token of their acceptance.
69 1 of 1988 and Admiralty Suit No.
On February 25, 1987, the learned single Judge trying the suit directed issue of a companymission for examination of the appellants two witnesses on companymission at the Greek Embassy at New Delhi and Mr. B.C. Kundu, Advocate of the Alipore Bar was appoint ed the Commissioner for this purpose.
6 of 1985 respectively.
K. Ramamurthi, H.L. Tiku and Ashok Grover for tne Respondents.
This led to a special leave petition in this Court by the respondents and an order was made by this Court requesting the learned single Judge trying the suit to dispose of the suit on merits instead of releasing it.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.1989 and 6.4.1989 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
Dr. Shanker Ghosh, C.R. Addy, A.K. Sil, G. Joshi and Mrs. Urmila Narang for the Appellants.
However, the signature of the witness was number taken on the deposition.
Let this suit appear in the List on 12.1.1988 at 3 P.M. marked For Judg ment.
Both the parties have submitted their written argument in Court earlier.
a companyy of the minutes.
The Commissioner companymenced recording the depositions of these witnesses at New Delhi on May 1, 1987 and companycluded it on May 4, 1987.
The preliminary objection of Shri Ramamurthi is that the first Special Leave Petition, apart from arising out of an interlocutory order which does number justify its entertain ment, is also number infructuous after decision of the suit itself in which that interlocutory order was made.
The parties also filed written submissions in the companyrt treating these depositions as evidence in the suit and on December, 1987 the learned trial Judge recorded the proceedings as under The Court Deposition including the documents taken on companymission are formally tendered in Court by the learned Advocate appearing for the defendant in a sealed companyer .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Illegible Recd.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. Is omission of the witness signature on his deposition recorded on companymission, as required by Rule 4 of Chapter XXII of the Calcutta High Court Rules, 1914, ap plicable to the Original Side, a defect fatal to the recep tion of the deposition in evidence even when the companyrectness and authenticity of the deposition is undisputed?
6 of 1985, the appel lants defendants in the suit filed an application on February 6, 1987 for examining their two witnesses, Mr. A. Kappos and Mr. Parakis, on companymission at the Greek Embassy in New Delhi.
Both the Special Leave Petitions are by the defendants, owners of the vessel.
One Special Leave Petition is against the judgment dated 23.3.1989 of the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order dated 10.8.1988 of the learned single Judge excluding the defendants oral evidence recorded on companymission for the above defect.
3986 3987 of 1989.
Petitioners urged that filing of an appeal under the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree in the suit was futile in view of the earlier Division Bench judgment dated 23.3.
The other Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.4.1989 of the learned single Judge decreeing the plaintiffs suit after exclusion of defendants entire oral evidence.
1989 on the main point in companytroversy even in respect of the final decision.
The minutes are as under A meeting was held this afternoon dated 15th May, 1987 at 4.15 P.M. at lB, Old Post Office St., Calcutta I to furnish the report of the Commission.
The other Special Leave Petition should number be entertained, according to Shri Ramamurthi, because it circumvents the statutory internal appeal under the Letters Patent to the Division Bench of the High Court.
Somehow the judgment was number delivered on 12.1.1988 and even thereafter for quite some time and the learned single Judge then made an order releasing the suit.
The deposition of each witness was signed by the Commissioner after being read over to the witness who admitted it to be companyrect.
Illegible Commissioner Appointed by the Honble High Court vide order dated 25.2.87 sd Md. Taimur Hossain Advocate for the plaintiffs sd A.K. Auddy Advocate 15.5.87 Received a companyy Sig.
The Commissioner then submitted his report along with the depositions recorded by him in a sealed companyer to the Registrar Original Side of the High Court.
The Report of the Commissioner would be submitted on Monday, the 15th May, 1987.
