(1.) The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 19-8-2002, by which the incomplete examination-in-chief of a witness had been allowed to be completed by filing an affidavit.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that in the suit No. 279/ 1993, Deoji Mai v. Laxman Das, the examination-in-chief of PW 8 Murli was recorded but could not be completed for paucity of time on 16-3-2002. When he again appeared on 17-4-2002, some questions were asked in examination-in-chief, but there had been dispute as to whether such questions can be asked and the same could not be concluded. Same position remained on 16-5-2002, 20-5-2002, 1-6-2002 and 22-7-2002 and;the remaining examination-in-chief was filed in the form of an affidavit by the plaintiff-respondent. The petitioner-defendant sought time to argue on the acceptability of an affidavit for the purpose of concluding the examination-in-chief and ultimately the case was adjourned time .and again as is evident from the order-sheets dated 8-7-2002, 6-8-2002 and 17-8-2002. The impugned order was passed on 19-8-2002 rejecting the objection of the petitioner-defendant and accepting the affidavit. Hence, this revision.
(3.) Mr. Panwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant has submitted that as the original suit relates to eviction of the tenant under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, whatever the judgment and decree to be passed by the learned trial Court shall be appealable and the affidavit, as provided under O. 18, R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (for short, "the Act, 1999") cannot be accepted and the procedure prescribed under O. 18, R. 5 has to be followed, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.