Striking off the defence does not displace the direction to decide the preliminary issue first.

The plaintiff sought leave to file a Judges’ Brief of Documents and appointment of a Commissioner to record the plaintiff’s evidence and cross-examination.

In an earlier proceeding, the Division Bench had directed that the question raised in G.A. No. 8 of 2023 be tried as a preliminary issue before the suit proceeded further, while permitting relevant documents to be disclosed and evidence, if required, to be recorded in Court or by commission.

The defendant’s defence was subsequently struck off for non-compliance with payment obligations.

The parties disputed whether that later order, and the Supreme Court’s order permitting the Single Judge to proceed in accordance with law, allowed the plaintiff to proceed directly to the substantive trial.

Whether the plaintiff could proceed with the substantive trial, including evidence on the suit’s substantive issues, before determination of the preliminary issue raised in G.A. No. 8 of 2023.

Whether the plaintiff could file a Judges’ Brief of Documents and seek a Commissioner before that preliminary issue was determined, and, if so, the permissible scope of those steps.

A specific, operative procedural direction of a Division Bench must be followed unless recalled or varied; judicial discipline requires adherence to superior or coordinate Bench decisions.

The meaning and effect of a judgment must be determined from what it actually decided, read as a whole and in context; a consequence not decided cannot be attributed to it.

A direction that a question be tried as a preliminary issue before the suit proceeds further governs the sequence of adjudication, although the Court retains discretion over whether evidence is necessary and whether it should be recorded in Court or by commission.

The Court also relied on Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, cited in the judgment as (2024) 4 SCC 696, for the principle that a jurisdictional question should be determined at the commencement rather than at the conclusion of the enquiry.

The Division Bench’s direction of 10 April 2024 required the preliminary issue to be decided before the suit proceeded further and had not been recalled or varied.

The later order striking off the defendant’s defence addressed the defendant’s participation in the suit, not whether the suit remained maintainable; likewise, the Supreme Court’s liberty to proceed in accordance with law did not determine or displace the preliminary-issue direction.

The plaintiff could therefore file documents and seek evidence-related directions only insofar as they concerned the preliminary issue.

The Court would first decide whether oral evidence was necessary and, if so, whether it should be recorded in Court or by commission.

The plaintiff was permitted to file a Judges’ Brief of Documents limited to that issue.

The Court would determine whether oral evidence was necessary and, if so, whether it should be recorded in Court or through a Commissioner; no evidence on the substantive issues could be recorded at this stage.

The order striking off the defendant’s defence remained in force.

G.A. No. 10 of 2026 was disposed of, with the next date fixed for 14 December 2026.