Now, while taking the case from another angle, it was not on the whims and fancies of the respondents that they could raise any objection to the evidence of the witnesses at any time. The trial Court knowing fully well that the petitioners are bound to shift the onus, permitted the petitioners to lead evidence. The witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioners. Once the witnesses examined, were in the hands of the Court, then it was not appropriate for the Court to strike off/delete their evidence as a whole midway without completing their examination. However, the objection, if any, regarding the admissibility of documents, if produced by such witnesses, could be decided by the Court at that time. There is no provision under the Code to delete the evidence, as led by the party, before conclusion of the trial and it was only at the conclusion of the trial that the Court could ignore such evidence being irrelevant, inadmissible, beyond pleading or issues, being scandalous or otherwise unnecessary and impermissible. The Court could also refuse to consider such evidence, if it deemed appropriate at the time of trial. However, the party affecting, could raise such objection at that time or before such witness is produced.
