G.RAVI Vs. G.SAROJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the return of his proof affidavit as PW1 filed in lieu of the chief examination, the plaintiff is before this Court.

(2.) A perusal of the original proof affidavit of PW1 Mr.G.Ravi would show that the same has been returned with the following endorsement.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no rule which contemplates that the chief examination should be in the vernacular language. He would submit that the only criteria that is contemplated while preparing the affidavit is prescribed in Rule 40 of the Civil Rules of Practice where any person who is unacquainted with the language in which the affidavit is written, it shall be certified that the affidavit was read over and explained by the person in whose presence the deponent had affixed his signature or mark was so done after the contents was read over and explained to him and after the deponent had understood the contents thereof. He would submit that the affidavit in question has complied with this procedure as a perusal of the jurat would indicate that the contents of the proof affidavit has been explained in Tamil to the deponent who understood the same and has affixed his signature. In fact, the deponent has signed in the English language.