PRITHIPAL SINGH Vs. SURINDER KAUR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prithipal Singh legal representative of the original Plaintiff since deceased has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 08.12.2010 Annexure P-1passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. Defendant No. 3-Gurbir Singh appeared as DW-6 and his part examination-in-chief was recorded on 08.11.2001. Thereafter while appearing in the witness box to complete his testimony, Defendant No. 3 as DW-6 wanted to tender his affidavit of examination-in-chief in accordance with Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC). The said prayer was opposed by counsel for the Plaintiff. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 allowed the said prayer of Defendant No. 3 and permitted him to furnish his affidavit as examination-in-chief. Feeling aggrieved, legal representative of Plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the case file.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that Order 18 Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure does not permit splitting of examination -in-chief i.e part of it being recorded orally in Court and part of it being tendered by way of affidavit. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Sharad Wasudeorao Kalmegh v. Leena Shara Kalmegh, 2005 2 ALLMR 662.