JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 02.07.2013, whereby petitioners' application under Order 18 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, has been rejected by the trial Court.

2. Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court's attention towards the plaint that was filed by the respondent-plaintiff and the affidavit (Annex.4) and submitted that affidavit in question is ad-verbatim the plaint.

3. He submitted that the affidavit in such form ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court. He submitted that such affidavit is in conflict of the mandate of Section 142 of the Evidence Act.

4. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order impugned is perfectly just and valid and there is no statutory embargo, which restricts filing of affidavit in terms of the pleadings.

5. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents further argued that Section 142 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is of little help to the petitioners, as the same simply puts an embargo on asking leading questions to a witness.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the mat