Vhb Life Sciences Inc vs Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7th May, 2018 in Suit No. CS(OS) 641/2008,

whereby the learned Single Judge has closed the opportunity of the appellant herein to cross-examine PW-1 K.G. Ananthakrishnan.

Mr. Pravin Anand, learned counsel for the respondent had, on the last date of hearing, taken an objection with regard to the maintainability of the

appeal on the ground that the impugned order is not an appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. He had relied upon the judgment of the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of HPL India Ltd. And Ors. v. QRG Enterprises and Anr. 238 (2017) DLT 123 (DB). Today he has also

relied upon three judgments of this Court in Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. V. JC. Bamford Excavators Ltd. and Anr. FAO (OS) 37/2018 decided on 14th

March, 2018; Oberoi Realty Ltd. and Ors. v. EIH Ltd. and Ors. FAO(OS)(COMM) 215/2018 decided on 24th September, 2018 and; Micromax

Informatics Ltd. v. Vijay Jain and Ors. FAO(OS) 310/2017 decided on 13th December, 2017.

On this submission of Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Amarjit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that judgment of this court in HPL

India Ltd. and Ors. (supra) is under challenge before the Supreme Court and is still pending consideration. He has drawn our attention to two orders

passed by the Supreme Court on 16th February, 2017 and 15th March, 2018. According to him, in the earlier order dated 16th February, 2017, the

Supreme Court had directed that the disputed documents, which were the subject matter of the appeal to be taken on record subject to the result of

the case. Mr. Amarjit Singh states that the appellant be permitted to cross-examine Mr. K.G. Ananthakrishnan subject to the outcome of the appeal

pending before this Court.

We are not impressed by the submission made by Mr. Singh for the simple reason that there is no stay on the order of HPL India Ltd. and Ors.

(Supra). Further, Mr. Anand is justified in relying upon other judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court taking similar view.

In view of the above an order on the application under Order 15(A) read with Section 151 CPC is not an appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1

CPC and also in view of the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in HPL India Ltd. and Ors. (supra), the appeal is not maintainable. The

same is dismissed.