M.M. Singh Bedi, J.:-

1. In the present revision petition, counsel for the petitioner has raised an interesting controversy regarding the permissibility of examination on oath by oral evidence before a Commissioner appointed under Order 26 Rule 4 CPC to record evidence as per Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and a statutory bar of recording oral evidence in examination-in-chief on oath.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that examination-in-chief can only be recorded on affidavit by a Commissioner appointed under Order 26 Rule 4 CPC after the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (No. 20 of 2002).

3. Brief facts in the present revision petition filed by the tenant are that the landlord/respondents obtained an ex-parte ejectment order against the petitioners in proceedings under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, for short 'the Act'. The tenant-petitioners filed application for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order on the ground that they had not been served. The claim of the landlord-respondents appears to be that the petitioners had been served in accordance with law by process server. The tenant-petitioners have already led their eviden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document