Interim stay against striking out pleadings and evidence may prevent a truncated trial when challenges remain pending.

Interim protection may be granted where striking out pleadings or affidavit evidence under challenge would truncate an expedited trial and later success in the challenge would require reopening evidence and recalling witnesses. The Court found that a temporary stay of the order striking out parts of the written statements and chief-examination affidavit would not prejudice the opposing parties, because irrelevant material could still be excluded if necessary. By contrast, no stay could be granted against refusal of an amendment application because no operative amendment existed to suspend. The result was limited protection against disruption of the trial, while amendment-related relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's refusal to stay the operation of the trial court's order striking out parts of the written statements and the plaintiff's chief-examination affidavit pending disposal of the writ petitions. (ii) Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's refusal to stay the operation of the trial court's order dismissing the amendment application.

Issue (i): Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's refusal to stay the operation of the trial court's order striking out parts of the written statements and the plaintiff's chief-examination affidavit pending disposal of the writ petitions.

Analysis: The dispute concerned ongoing trial proceedings in which portions of written statements and affidavit evidence had been struck out on the footing that they travelled beyond the pleadings. The Court noted that if the challenge to those orders ultimately succeeded, the evidence would have to be reopened and witnesses recalled, causing avoidable disruption to the expedited trial. It held that a temporary stay of those orders would not prejudice the contesting parties, because any irrelevant material could later be excluded and no evidence outside the pleadings would ultimately be acted upon. The Court therefore found it appropriate to prevent a truncated trial pending the High Court's decision.

Conclusion: The refusal to stay those orders was interfered with, and operation of the orders striking out the written statements and affidavit portions was stayed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's refusal to stay the operation of the trial court's order dismissing the amendment application.

Analysis: The proposed amendment had not yet been allowed, and therefore there was no operative amendment in existence whose operation could meaningfully be stayed. The Court held that a stay in such circumstances would be ineffectual, because the amendment would come into being only if the High Court later accepted the challenge to the trial court's refusal. On that basis, the Court declined to grant interim protection in relation to the amendment order.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted in respect of the refusal to stay the amendment order.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of protecting the pleadings and evidence from truncation during the pendency of the writ petitions, while the amendment-related relief was declined and the trial was directed to continue without obstruction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where continuation of trial would be materially prejudiced by exclusion of pleadings or evidence that are under challenge, and later success in the challenge would require reopening of the trial, interim protection may be granted to avoid a truncated trial; but no stay lies against a non-operative refusal of amendment.

---