1 chs37-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ADMIRALTY & VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.37 OF 2009 IN ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.7 OF 2006 Jindal Poly Films Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. m.v. Maersk Virginia & Ors. ....Defendants Mr.Sunip Sen with Mr.Zarir Bharucha and Mr.Bimal Rajshekhar i/b Ms.Ashwin Shankar for the Plaintiff. Mr.Rahul Narichania with Mr.K.R. Shriram and Ms.Subra Karmarkar for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This is the plaintiff’s chamber summons to reopen its evidence and adduce further evidence. The plaintiff has also sought permission to file a supplementary affidavit of documents. The evidence was recorded on commission. The learned Commissioner filed his report along with the notes of evidence. 2. By an order dated 18.10.2008, the learned Judge rejected several documents sought to be proved by the plaintiff. Before the learned Commissioner, the defendant’s advocate stated that the defendants did not admit certain documents. As regards some of these documents, a specific objection has been taken to the effect that they had not been referred to in the plaint, the list of Documents annexed to the plaint and the 2 chs37-09 affidavit of documents filed by the plaintiff and that therefore, these documents should not be taken on record. 3. An objection to the admissibility of documents by merely stating that the defendants do not admit them is not sufficient. It is essential for a party objecting to the documents being taken on record to specify the objections. This would enable the party seeking to prove the documents an opportunity of leading further evidence to prove the documents. The learned Commissioner does not have power to rule on the admissibility of documents. When the evidence is led in Court, the Judge rules on the specific objections. It is not always that objections though sustainable are taken. For instance, even if a document is inadmissible on any particular ground, the other side may not raise an objection for a variety of reason. The ruling on the objections would be only qua the objection taken before the Court and thereby made known to a party seeking to prove the documents. 4. By not specifying the objection the party seeking to prove the document is deprived the opportunity of proving it by other reasons. In these circumstances, a party ought to be permitted to lead further evidence for the purpose of proving the documents which were objected to but without specifying the grounds of objections. 5. It is true that as regards some of these documents, an objection was taken on the ground that the same were not been disclosed in the evidence. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances including the fact that I am inclined to grant the plaintiff an opportunity of proving the documents 3 chs37-09 in respect whereof the objections were not specified, I am inclined to permit the plaintiff another opportunity of filing a further affidavit of documents. Considering the fact that I have granted the plaintiff the indulgence of filing a further affidavit of documents, it is only fair that the defendants be compensated with costs. 7. In the circumstances, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The order however is limited to the following documents :- “Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 5A, 6A, 7, 9, 9A, 11, 12, 12A, 15, 15A, 17A, 19, 20, 20A, 20B, 21, 32 and 33.” The plaintiff shall pay the defendants the costs of this Chamber Summons irrespective of the result in the suit, fixed at Rs.15,000/- on or before 15.12.2010 as a condition precedent. The defendants shall be entitled to lead further evidence after the plaintiff closes its case. This order is stayed upto and including 18.1.2011.