Bankim Behari Das VS Hasen Ali

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH
Bankim Behari Das – Appellant
Versus
Hasen Ali – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None appeared.

JUDGMENT

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.— The core question to be answered in the present revision petition is as to whether the learned trial court who has recorded the statement of the concerned PW can correct typographical mistakes in the examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit on the application filed by the witness himself.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to answer the core question in negative, strenuously urged that the examination-in-chief of PW in the form of affidavit is not a pleading and, therefore, it cannot be corrected by the court who recorded the statement of PW by exercising his/her power under order 6, rule 17 read with section 151 of the CPC. He further urged that the witness himself being neither plaintiff nor defendant in the civil suit is a stranger in the proceeding and, therefore, he cannot file the application for correcting typographical mistake in his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit to the court.

4. For deciding the core question involved in this case, it is not required to discuss the pleading of the parties in detail, it would be suffice to mention tha