MADHUR INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. M V ORIENT COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 31st July, 2002 Commissioner was appointed. Plaintiffs were directed to file their evidence on affidavit before the Commissioner. The plaintiffs have so, done. Even before cross-examination could commence recording of evidence various objections were raised in the matter of evidence filed on affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. That is how the matter has come before this Court.

(2.) CONSIDERING the issues involved and as it involved the large issue of interpreting Order 18 as amended by the Acts of 1999 and 2002 of C. P. C. and considering the objections. Counsel for the parties as well as other concerned were heard and the matter was kept for judgment as to the scope and ambit of Order 18 and the jurisdiction of this Court thereto. After the judgment was reserved the Apex Court has now declared the law as to the scope and extent of Order 18 by the judgment dated 25th October, 2002 in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 189. From the judgment it is clear that the validity of the amendments has been upheld. Insofar as Order 18 is concerned the law as declared emerges as under :-

(3.) CONSIDERING the ratio in Salem Advocates Bar Association (supra) as it emerges it is not necessary to consider the various arguments advanced or for that matter the judgment cited at the bar save and except the judgment of the learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Laxman Das v. Deoji Mal, AIR 2003 Raj. 74. The learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court had taken a view that Order 18, Rule