The Court emphasized the importance of procedural laws in aiding the administration of justice and highlighted the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Order XVIII, Rule 4, which allows for further examination-in-chief on affidavit before cross-examination begins.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein instituted Title Suit No. 50 of 2008 seeking declaration of not only their rights and title over the suit land, but also cancellation of the will, claimed to have been executed by Smt. Rajlaxmi Deb (since deceased), mother of the petitioner No. 1 herein and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.

2. The petitioners herein appeared, as defendants, in the suit and filed their written statements, wherein they denied and disputed the allegations made by the plaintiffs (i.e., the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) against the genuineness and/or validity of the said will.

3. In course of time, when the suit reached the stage of evidence, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as plaintiffs, submitted their examination-in-chief on affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1, who was one of the defendants in the suit, also submitted his examination-in-chief on affidavit. Before cross-examination of the plaintiffs (i.e., respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) could have commenced, the petitioner No. 1 herein filed an application in the suit on 25-1-2008, praying for allowing her to submit her further examination-in-chief by way of additional affidavit. With this application, an affidavit, containing further examination-in-chief of the petitioner No. 1 herein, was filed by the petitioner No. 1. By order, dated 25-1-2008, learned trial Court rejected the prayer for filing of the said additional affidavit on the ground that the examination-in-chief, by way of affidavit of the petitioner, had already been received and there was no provision for acceptance of examination-in-chief on additional affidavit. It is the order, dated 25-1-2008, aforementioned which stands impugned by the present petitioners by making this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. I have heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. B. Das, learned senior Counsel for the respondents.

5. While considering the present revision petition, what needs to be noted is that supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is exercised by a High Court to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their Jurisdiction. When a subordinate Court assumes Jurisdiction in a case, where it does not have such Jurisdiction, or where a subordinate Court fails to exercise jurisdiction, though it had Jurisdiction or where a subordinate Court exercises its jurisdiction in a manner not permitted by law and occasioning thereby failure of justice, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction See Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai reported in AIR 2003 SC 3044.

6. If, therefore, the learned trial Court is found to have refused to accept the examination-in-chief, offered by the petitioner No. 1 in the form of an additional affidavit, though it had the power to accept the same, then, such refusal can be interfered with in exercise of this Court's power under Article 227, for, such refusal would amount to refusal to exercise jurisdiction, where jurisdiction existed. This position of law has not been disputed by the learned Counsel appearing before me. I may also hasten to point out that the refusal by the learned trial Court to accept the additional affidavit is not on merit, but on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to accept such an additional affidavit.

7. Bearing in mind what is observed above, let me point out, now, the scheme of recording of evidence, in a suit, as conceived by the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'Code'). By way of the amendments, which have been introduced with the help of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, the scheme for recording of evidence, in a suit as embodied in Order XVIII, has undergone some noticeable changes. The title of Order XVIII reads:

Hearing of the suit and Examination of Witnesses

8. Under Order XVIII, Rule 1, it is the plaintiff, who has the right to begin the hearing unless the defendant a