P.SHANMUGAM
Subbammal – Appellant
Versus
Paramasivam Asari – Respondent
Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. O.S.NO.457 of 1995 is filed by him for declaration and for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit properties.
2. At the stage of trial, after the examination of plaintiff's side was completed, the defendant wanted to examine himself. The defendant chose to file an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC(inserted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002),by virtue of which, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit .
3.The petitioner objecting to the said course filed a petition under Order XVIII Rule 5 CPC to delete the proof affidavit and to direct the chief examination of the defendant to be taken in the Court. The said application was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Ambasamudram. . The present Revision is filed against the said order.
4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amended provision under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC is a general provision providing for the examination-in- chief of the witness on affidavit. It must give way to the special provision viz. Order XVIII Rule 5 CPC providing that evidence of each witness
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.