G MADESAN Vs. DHARMAPURI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.51 of 2002 in a suit filed by them for a declaration that the property tax assessment made by the defendant for the year 2002 is null and void. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.673 of 2002 to examine them orally in the court by way of chief examination rather than filing an affidavit for chief examination as contemplated under Order 18 Rules 4 and 5. The learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri dismissed that application on the ground that after the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, chief examination to a party would be done only by filing an affidavit and opportunity should be given to the other side for cross examination. Aggrieved over the said order, this revision has been filed.

(2.) Mr.V. Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would strongly contend that a harmonious construction of Order 18 Rule 4 and Order 18 rule 5 would show that in all appealable orders Order 18 Rule 5 should be followed and therefore the petitioners should have been examined by court in chief examination. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the revision petitioners also cited a decision reported in AIR 2003 RAJASTHAN PG.74 (LAXMAN DAS V. DEOJI MAL) wherein the said court has held as follows:-

(3.) Inspite of notice, there is no representation for the respondents. It is true that as per the Amended Act under Order 18 Rule 4, chief examination of a party will be done by way of filing an affidavit along with documents, copies of which will be given to the other side and the other side will be given opportunity to cross examine the party, who files an affidavit. The very purpose of introducing such a procedure is for the purpose of saving the time of the court. The said order and invention of the legislature has been made out in the following judgments: In the judgment reported in 2003 (2) CTC 419 (SUBBAMMAL v. PARAMASIVAM ASARI), this court has held as follows: