Article 227 supervisory restraint upheld where tribunal deferred admissibility objections until final hearing.

The High Court held that supervisory interference under Article 227 was not warranted against the MRTP Commission's decision to defer ruling on the admissibility of affidavits, documents and related objections until final hearing. Objections based on verification defects, non-production of originals and evidentiary value went to admissibility, but the tribunal retained discretion to decide them later, particularly where cross-examination was already extensive and could aid assessment. The Court noted that the cited Supreme Court authority favoured prompt objections to evidence, but did not require an immediate ruling in every case. The Commission's interlocutory case-management choice was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the MRTP Commission's decision to defer ruling on the admissibility of the complainants' evidence and documents until the stage of final hearing.

Analysis: The objection to the affidavit, the alleged absence of proper verification, and the non-production of originals went to the admissibility and evidentiary value of the material. The Commission was not bound to decide that objection immediately when raised. A tribunal conducting an enquiry has discretion to consider such objections at a later stage, especially where the witness has already been extensively cross-examined and the answers may assist in assessing the objection. The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is not meant for routine interference with such interlocutory management unless the refusal to decide then and there is perverse or would defeat the ends of justice. The cited Supreme Court authority supported prompt objection to evidence, but did not compel an immediate ruling in every case.

Conclusion: The refusal to give a preliminary ruling on admissibility was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---