$~6
*        IN THE  HIGH COURT OF DELHI  AT NEW DELHI
+        CS(COMM) 176/2017
ROHIT BHATIA                                                     
..... Plaintiff
Through    
 Mr.
Ashok Kr. Mittal and Mr. Partha
J.
Deka, Advocates with plaintiff in person
versus
SUBHASH ARORA                                                ..... Defendant
Through    
 Mr.
Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate
CORAM:
SH. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH
(DHJS), JOINT
REGISTRAR O
R D
E R
%                          23.08.2017
Examination in chief of PW1 was recorded partly
on
the last
date.
 The
 original  bills  exhibited
 as
 Ex.PW1/F1-134  stated
 to  be
placed on record of other case. The copies of the bills on record of this case are
marked as Mark X (colly from page 215 to 357).
Learned counsel for defendant submits: (i) that plaintiff  has not relied upon his product, (ii) Ex. PW1/D is photograph. The product of which
 Ex.PW1/D
 is  a  photograph,  has
 not  been  produced  and
affidavit
 of the photographer who took the photograph has not been
placed on record. Therefore, Ex.PW1/D cannot be exhibited, (iii)
Ex.PW1/A1, A2, A3 and A4 are photocopies and they
cannot be exhibited. (iv) Ex.PW1/B is a copy to copy and it cannot be exhibited,
(v)Ex.PW1/C1 and
 C2 are not the original certificates obtained from the
Office
of
Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade
Marks and it
cannot be exhibited.
Learned  counsel
 for  defendant
 submits  that
 if  plaintiff  
 is
relying
 upon
 any  other  document,  it  may  be  specified.  Learned counsel for
plaintiff submits that plaintiff is relying upon the documents mentioned in his affidavit
 and which have been exhibited
/ marked.
Learned counsel for plaintiff  submits that this court cannot de-
exhibit the documents at this stage. Learned counsel for plaintiff
further submits that before a local commissioner objection can be
taken
 regarding
 the
 documents
 and
 it  has
 to  be
 decided
 by  the Hon’ble
 Court  at  the  time
 of  arguments.  Learned  counsel
 for
defendant submits that this court can decide the
objection. Learned counsel
 for  plaintiff    submits  that  matter
 may  be  placed  before Hon’ble
Court.
Matter be listed before Hon’ble Court on 22nd September, 2017
for direction.
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH
(DHJS) JOINT
REGISTRAR
AUGUST 23, 2017
ms
THIS ORDER OF LD.REGISTRAR WAS DEALT WITH HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND THAT THE SAME IS DEALT AS HERE IN BELOW:
$~10
*        
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI  AT NEW DELHI
+        CS(COMM) 176/2017 & I.A. Nos.4593/2016, 9230/2016
ROHIT BHATIA                                                     
..... Plaintiff
Through    
 Mr.
Ashok Mittal, Advocate
versus
SUBHASH ARORA                                                .....
Defendant
Through      Mr.
Ajay Amitabh Suman and
Mr. Vinay Kumar
Shukla, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
O R D E R
%                          22.09.2017
1.       The matter has been placed before  Court today pursuant to
order
dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Joint
Registrar.
2.       An  objection
 was
 raised
 by  the
 learned  counsel
 for  the defendant with regard to the Exhibit marks being put
on
certain documents
tendered
in the affidavit
of
PW-1. It is
contended that
the
documents could not be
given exhibit marks.
3.       The documents sought to be de-exhibited i.e. Ex.PW-1/D is a
photograph, documents Ex.PW-1/A1, A2,
A3
and A4 are photocopies and Ex. PW-1/B is a copy
to
copy and Ex.PW-1/C1 and Ex. PW-1/C2
are not the original certificates obtained from
the
Office of Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade
Marks but are certified copies of
registration certificates which have been obtained from other judicial
proceedings.
4.       Insofar as the documents marked as Ex.PW-1/D, Ex.PW-1/C1 and Ex.PW-1/C2 are concerned, learned counsel for the
plaintiff submits that he
shall prove
the said documents in accordance with law by
producing appropriate witness and/or summoning the original records.  Accordingly, the reference
in
the evidence affidavit to these documents as Exhibits is deleted.
5.       Insofar as the documents sought to be marked as Ex.PW-1/A1,
A2, A3, A4 and Ex.PW-1/B are concerned, as they
are not originals, the reference in the evidence affidavit to these documents as Exhibits is deleted.
6.     The said documents be only
Marked for the purposes of identification.
7.     
 The objection is accordingly disposed of.
8.       List
 before  the  Joint  Registrar
 on  27th   October,  2017  for directions.
9.       List
 before
 Court  for  disposal  of
 I.A.  No.  9230/2016
 on
23.02.2018.
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017
nn
                    SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
