Foreign witness affidavit objections cannot block cross-examination where admissibility issues and waiver can be addressed later.

Objections to a foreign witness's affidavit, supporting documents, translations, and legalization did not justify stopping cross-examination. An examination-in-chief affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC was not treated as a replication merely because it traversed the written statement, and any overreach could be tested in cross-examination and at final hearing. Documentary objections were treated as waived because the materials had remained on record for a long time without timely challenge. The absence of English translations under the Delhi High Court (Original) Rules, 1967 did not bar cross-examination, since admissibility issues could be dealt with later. A notarized foreign affidavit was not invalid merely for lack of attestation by an Indian diplomatic or consular officer, and the witness's presence supported proceeding with evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether objections to the foreign witness's affidavit, accompanying documents, translation requirements, and legalization of the affidavit were sufficient to prevent cross-examination and justify refusal to proceed with evidence.

Analysis: The affidavit filed as examination-in-chief under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could not be treated as a replication merely because it traversed matters in the written statement. Any objection that parts of the affidavit went beyond pleadings could be met in cross-examination and considered at the stage of final hearing. The objection to fresh documents was rejected because they had been on record for a long period, the defendant had notice of them, and objections were not taken when they could have been raised earlier. The Court treated this conduct as waiver and held that the defendant could not obstruct cross-examination on that ground. The absence of English translations under the Delhi High Court (Original) Rules, 1967 did not justify refusing cross-examination, since admissibility objections could be addressed later. The challenge to the affidavit's legalization was also rejected because a notarized foreign affidavit was not rendered invalid merely because it was not attested by an Indian diplomatic or consular officer abroad; the relevant legal framework supported recognition of foreign notarial acts and did not require the restrictive reading urged by the defendant. The Court further noted that the witness was present and could even have been placed on oath if any doubt remained about the affidavit form.

Conclusion: The objections were untenable, and the defendant was not entitled to stop the cross-examination of the witness.

---