Sahidullah Munshi, J. - (1.) Recording of the deposition of the first witness for the plaintiff, Mr. Harsh Vardhan Lodha, commenced on 28th November, 2018 and continued on the second day, i.e., 28.11.2018. Further examination-in-chief of the witness resumed again for the third day, i.e., 28.11.2018 and it was adjourned till 12th December, 2018. On 12th December, 2018, i.e., on the 4th day, when examination-in-chief resumed Mr. Ghosh asked a question to the witness being question no.80 - "do you know since when your father Rajendra Singh Lodha knew Mr. M.P. Birla?" When this question was raised, Mr. Kapur, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the defendant nos. 1(b) and 1(c) raised an objection that the answer which had gone down with reference to question no.73, should not have been recorded by the Court inasmuch as the statement of the witness is a 'hearsay'. Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate, raised his objection to the effect that such an objection raised by Mr. Kapur could not be entertained at a belated stage. The objection, which Mr. Kapur raised, ought to have been raised when answer to question no. 73 was given by the witness on 28.11.2018 but not on 12.12.2018 when question no.80 had been raised. According to Mr. Mitra, the objection should not find place in the deposition. However, according to him, if at all such objection was to be raised, the same should be bracketed 'subject to objection' meaning thereby, the objection can be dealt with at the final hearing of the suit. This Court, having regard to the gravity of the objection that the witness could not continue had the Court stopped him to answer any question after question no.73. This Court, therefore, attempted to finally decide the substance and the impact of the objection. As a result, recording of evidence had to be stopped and parties were heard at length on the issue of the objection particularly when it was the submission of Mr. Kapur that Court should not have recorded the answer to question no.73 being 'hearsay' and he further prayed for 'expunction' of the said answer from the evidence.
(2.) On this contention, whether or not the said answer should remain or be deleted, requires a decision before the witness is called on again to depose further and in particular, this is necessary to warn the parties not to disrupt the normal flow of evidence by raising unnecessary objection, the ultimate effect of which is that the object of speedy trial gets frustrated, when it is evident that this case was instituted by filing a probate petition on 17.08.2004 in P.L.A. 242 of 2004.
(3.) In support of his contention that the answer recorded under question no.73 should be expunged and that further question based on question no.73 should not be allowed to be asked to the witness, Mr. Kapur submits that the quality of the evidence as recorded under question no. 73, is inadmissible in evidence being the same is an hearsay evidence. Now, we have to discuss various aspects of hearsay evidence and the question and answers already given by this witness earlier and to weigh the nexus between the answer given by the witness in question no.73 and the earlier answers given by the same witness. It is also to be decided whether the objection raised by Mr. Kapur, even if the same has got substance, whether the same should have been entertained by this Court at this stage, that is, at the stage when almost few questions thereafter have already been answered by the witness.;