What is the correct procedure to be followed when a court receives proof (chief) affidavit? When and at what stage is the court to consider the objections raised to the marking of the documents in such affidavit? If there has been a delay in considering the objections and giving a ruling thereon, does that confer on a party the right to re-open the evidence and further examine/cross-examine a witness? These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration incidentally in this writ petition.

2. A reference to the facts first. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for injunction against passing off. Ext.P10 is the plaint. Against an interim order passed in that suit, C.M.A.No.1/01 was filed before this Court and by Ext.P2 judgment the said C.M.A. was disposed of with specific directions to dispose of the suit within a stipulated time frame Ext.P3 is the written statement filed by the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff and his witness were examined and the plaintiff’s evidence was closed. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1. He filed an affidavit of proof (now popularly referred to as the chief affidavit) under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. Exts.D1 to D79 and M.Os.1 to 44 were shown as marked in such affidavit. The defendant was to be cross-examined.

3. The plaintiff raised an objection that some of the documents and material objects referred to in the chief-affidavit do not deserve admission at all and some of them have to be further proved. He filed Ext.P4 written objections. Those objections were filed even before the cross-examination commenced. Ext.P5 objections was filed by the defendant to Ext.P4. The Court gave a ruling on the objections as per Ext.P6 order dated 6/7/2005.

4. By then, the defendant was cross-examined by the plaintiff’s counsel on 24/06/05, 25/06/05 and 27/6/05. When the court gave the ruling, it was, inter alia, directed that Exts.D5 to D18, D58 and M.O.37 can be marked and admitted. The plaintiff, in the light of Ext.P6 ruling filed Exts.P7 and P8 applications. The crux of the prayers was that the defendant’s evidence which had been closed by then after examination of D.W.1 may be re-opened and the defendant may be made available for further cross-examination by the plaintiff’s counsel. By Exts.P10 and P11 orders passed on Exts.P7 and P8 applications, those applications were dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff claims to be aggrieved by Exts.P10 and P11 orders.

5. At the fag end of the trial, after the evidence on both sides was closed, Ext.P9 application was filed by the plaintiff to implead a Company as an additional plaintiff. That Company allegedly had acquired the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of the proceedings and it was, in these circumstances, prayed that by invoking the powers under Order 22 Rule 10 of C.P.C. the said Company may be permitted to come on record as an additional plaintiff. The defendant resisted the said prayer. It was contended that the application was hopelessly belated. It was further urged that the defendant does not accept the assertion that there has been such assignment of rights of the original plaintiff in favour of the additional plaintiff sought to be impleaded. The learned Judge by Ext.P12 order dismissed Ext.P9 application. Exts.P10 to P12 are assailed in this writ petition.

6. Under the amended Order 18, significant, qualitative and revolutionary changes have been introduced in the trial of cases before the courts. It is not invariably necessary any more to examine all the witnesses in chief examination before court. Affidavits can be accepted in evidence. The amendment has the obvious intention of expediting the trial before courts. The logic and the spirit of the amendment have got to be imbibed by the law fraternity including Judges and lawyers. Otherwise the amendments will remain on paper only and the intended objective will not be achieved. This Court had occasion to consider the manner in which a proof affidavit has to