The main legal point established in the judgment is that procedural lapses and non-compliance with the provisions of CPC may not warrant exclusion of evidence if the party is not prejudiced, and the presumption of regular performance of judicial and official acts can be applied under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. The petitioner-Gurbhag Singh has filed the present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 13.05.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali with further direction to the trial Court to proceed in the matter as per law.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he had filed application to exclude affidavit and evidence of PW1-Inderjit Singh, affidavit and evidence of PW4, evidence of PW3 Magwinder Singh and the documents exhibited as PW6/A to PW6/F in the evidence of Kanwar Mubarak Singh. It is pointed out that Inderjit Singh PW1 filed his affidavit dated 28.07.2011 (Ex.PW2/A) tendered on 13.12.2013. He again placed on record another affidavit dated 20.02.2014 and he again tendered another affidavit dated 27.10.2014 (Ex.PW4/A) on 20.10.2014. The plaintiff could not tender affidavit of Inderjit Singh thrice. His examination-in-chief was recorded on 13.12.2013 and he was not cross-examined. He cannot be examined-in-chief again as PW2 and his affidavit Ex.PW4/A cannot be tendered. When the first affidavit tendered by Inderjit Singh PW1, he was not examined now the evidence of PW4 cannot be taken on record and it should be excluded. Furthermore, Magwinder Singh PW3 tendered his affidavit, it was not recorded on solemn affirmation. No oath was administered to him, therefore his statement is also liable to be excluded. Kanwar Mubarak Singh PW6 appeared as witness but his statement was not signed by the then Civil Judge nor the documents Ex.PW6/A to PW6/D bears the certificate of the learned Judge nor bears the signatures. Therefore, the same cannot be taken on record. In this regard application Annexure P1 was filed. It was contested by the other party by filing reply Annexure P2. The said application was wrongly declined by passing impugned order dated 13.05.2019 which is Annexure P-3. The learned trial Court wrongly held that the present petitioner has not suffered any prejudice. The proceedings were not conducted as per the established procedure and the provisions of CPC. Therefore, the present petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 13.05.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali may kindly be set aside and the said Court may be directed to proceed as per law.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent in her brief arguments pointed out that the application filed by the present petitioner before the trial Court for excluding the evidence of Inderjit Singh PW1 and affidavit and evidence of PW4, statement of Magwinder Singh PW3 as well as the documents proved on record by Kanwar Mubarak Singh PW6 as PW6/A to PW5/F without any basis. The case is fixed for defence evidence and at that belated stage the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings of the case. The impugned order dated 13.05.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali is fully justified and all the aspects of the present case have been dealt with. The present petitioner has not suffered any prejudice at the relevant time. No objection was raised regarding the statement of Inderjit Singh recorded as PW4 nor any objection was raised when the testimony of Magwinder Singh PW3 was recorded. Mere non signing of exhibits by the trial Court does not mean that the said documents were not proved on record and the same are to be taken off the record. The petition filed by the petitioner is without merits and the same may kindly be dismissed.

4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. Firstly I will deal with the statement of Inderjit Singh recorded as PW1/PW4. It is not disputed that initially Inderjit Singh tendered his affidavit dated 28.07.2011 in the Court on 13.12.2013 and on this date the witness was not cross-examined. Thereafter another affidavit dated 20.02.2014 was placed on record and the same witness was ultimately examined as PW4 who again tendered his affidavi