R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.: - Heard. Perused the records.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9523 of 2004. The appeal is essentially against the part of the impugned judgment which relates to certain observations in relation to the drafting and presentation of the affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the directions issued in that regard to the Courts and the tribunals.

3. The said petition was filed against the order of the trial Court disallowing cross - examination the deponents, who had filed their affidavits under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, the advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents conceded that the deponents, who had filed the affidavits, were required to be subjected to cross - examination. In that regard though the petition could have disposed of by consent, the learned Single Judge, being of the opinion that the procedure for preparing the affidavits was not being followed in the manner it was required to be followed, proceeded to deal with the said issue and held that the procedure followed in that regard defeats the very purpose for which the provision under Rule 4 has been incorporated in the Order XVIII under amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1999 and 2002. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has issued certain directions whereby every affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be prepared by the lawyer for the party, and thereafter, to be transcribed by mechanical process, either with the help of typewriter or with the computer, for the purpose of filing thereof in the Court, and at the same time the concerned advocate is required to retain copy of the draft affidavit prepared by the advocate on the basis of the information given to him by the concerned deponent till the deponent is discharged in the concerned case by the Court. Aggrieved by these observations and the directions, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

4. The challenge is on four counts. Firstly, that the point addressed to and decided by the learned Single Judge, did not at all arise for consideration in the matter. Secondly, the observations, based on which the directions are issued, are nowhere in the realm of interpretation of law, and in the process, the learned Single Judge has, in fact, assumed the role of a legislature. Thirdly, the scheme of the Amendment Act to the Code of Civil Procedure and particularly in relation to the Order XVIII thereof was a subject - matter of scrutiny by the Apex Court on three occasions, and one of the decisions thereof was delivered prior to the impugned order. Fourthly, the procedure suggested is not in consonance with the provisions of law comprised under the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to the preparation of affidavit as well as filing thereof in the Court. Attention is sought to be drawn to the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of Salem Advocate Bar Association ors. V. Union of India, reported in 2003(3) Bom.C.R. 327, Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. V. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., reported in 2004(5) All MR (S.C.) 425, Salem Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu V. Union of India, reported in 2005(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 876, and of F.D.C. Ltd. V. Federation of Medical Representatives ors., reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 327 = 2003(2) ALL MR 510.

5. Undoubtedly, the Writ Petition No. 9523 of 2004 had come up before the learned Single Judge only on account of refusal on the part of the trial Court to permit the petitioner therein to cross - examine the deponents of the respondents, who had filed their affidavits under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code. It is a matter of record that the respondents could not defend the impugned order. There is a clear finding in the impugned order, which re