https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194429 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. en-us Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:31:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194429 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194429