JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2.The petitioner challenges the order dated 20-8-2002 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in S.C. Suit No. 7280/1998 rejecting the contention of the petitioner that petitioner can produce the evidence of the plaintiff in the form of affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of C.P.C. The trial Court has held that for the purpose of allowing the parties to produce the evidence in the form of affidavit, the suit must be of the type wherein evidence could be recorded in terms of un-amended Rule 4 of Order XVIII of C.P.C. and not the suit to which Rule 5 of the Order XVIII is applicable. Therefore, the points which arises in this petition are whether Rules 4 and 5 of the Order XVIII prescribes two different methods of recording of evidence and if so, what are those methods? In what circumstances those different methods are to be followed? Whether the provisions of law relating to recording of examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit under Rule 4 apply only to depositions of witnesses and not those of the parties to the suit? Are th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document