Soumen Sen, J.

This revisional application raises interpretation of Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

During the witness action, on 10th May, 2007, the witness on behalf of the defendant, namely, D.W.1 was examined and cross-examined and the same is duly recorded in the order dated10th May, 2007. Thereafter, on 8th June, 2010, when the said matter was taken up for argument, the learned Judge after going through the deposition found that the signature of the Presiding Officer was not appearing in the said deposition of D.W.1 and held that the evidentiary value of the said D.W.1 is questionable. The learned Judge, to avoid any future complications felt that another date may be fixed for further cross-examination of D.W.1 and, accordingly, adjourned the hearing of the argument till further cross-examination of the D.W.1 is over.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling of the Order dated 8th June, 2010 on the ground that under Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the signature of the Presiding Officer is not necessary and the same has been the view of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1987 Mad. 90 (Indian Overseas Bank v. A. Vimalan & Ors.). The petitioner filed its objection and submitted that there is no proper or specific ground for recalling of the said order inasmuch as the judgment of the Madras High Court is not binding on the City Civil Court and can only have some persuasive value. Moreover, the said judgment did not conclusively hold that that signature of the Presiding Officer/Judge was not required under Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

With these rival contentions as noted above, the learned Trial Judge considered the said application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that since there was no requirement under the amended provision of the Code of Civil Procedure to put a signature by the Judge after the evidence is recorded, there was no necessity to allow further cross-examination of D.W.1 as directed by the Order dated 8th June, 2010.

In arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Judge considered the fact that after the cross-examination was over, a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the defendant. The cross-examination was held in presence of the learned Advocates of the parties. The defendant filed its affidavit on evidence & she was cross-examined by the plaintiff firstly on 14th February, 2007 on which date it was deferred and ultimately the cross-examination resumed on 10th May, 2007 and on the same date, the evidence was closed. After the deposition was taken, the defendant put her signature along with the date, namely, 10th May, 2007. The signatures of the defendant appeared on the evidence on 10th May, 2007 and 14th February, 2007 are identical. There is no dispute that the defendant after being cross-examined signed the depositions on each of the dates when she was cross-examined putting the dates in her own hand. The depositions were properly recorded in open court in presence of the parties and the witness on behalf of the defendant after cross-examination was over put her signature on the typed copy of the depositions.

The learned Court held that the signature with the date appearing in the cross-examination dated 10th May, 2007 would clearly show that the defendant after taking solemn oath, present herself for cross-examination by the learned Advocate of the plaintiff and after the said deposition was typed out, the said witness put her signature on the typed copy of such deposition which could not have been possible unless the said deposition was typed contemporaneously in presence of the Presiding Officer or the Judge. The defendant never disputed that she was not cross-examined or the signature appearing on the deposition taken on 10th May, 2007 are not her signature. Moreover from the orde