ORDER:

This revision petition is filed against the common order and decree dated 01.04.2023 allowing I.A.No.42/2023 in HMOP No.27/2010 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge Rajam, filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. by the respondent No.1 in the divorce petition, seeking recall of herself to receive her additional chief affidavit for evidence in the main proceedings.

2. The parties are arraigned in the same manner as before the trial Court in the main proceedings.

3. The petitioner filed HMOP.No.27 of 2010 seeking divorce. During the course of the enquiry, the respondent No.1 filed the evidence in her chief-examination without describing the identity particulars of oath in form No.14 r/w Rule 39 of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1980. Without noticing the same, the cross-examination was started and the objection was raised. Thereafter, the petition in I.A.No.42 of 2023 and in I.A.No.43 of 2023 were filed to recall the respondent No.1 and to receive the additional chief affidavit. Though the petition was opposed, the trial Court allowed both petitions by observing that the affidavit of the 1st respondent without containing descriptive particulars viz., name, address etc., was accepted as evidence and it was only then in the beginning of the cross- examination, the error was noticed. The trial Court observed that it is a typographical and bonafide mistake and can be rectified. It is further held that no prejudice would be caused by allowing the petitions.

4. Having aggrieved by the common order passed in I.A.Nos.42 of 2023 and 43 of 2023 in HMOP.No.27 of 2010, this Civil Revision Petition is filed alleging that the provision of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC have not been followed by the trial Court and the petition cannot be allowed to fill the lacuna in the evidence already recorded.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced the arguments on the same lines. There is no quarrel in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that recalling of a witness under Order XVIII, Rule-18 C.P.C cannot be permitted for filling up lacunas. But, in the present case, under the peculiar circumstances, an incorrect form of affidavit in chief-examination without descriptive particulars of the deponent has been filed and taken in evidence and no cross-examination on the merits of the case has been conducted. The only cross-examination of the witness done is with regard to the lapse in the form of affidavit.

6. As per Order XVIII, Rule 4 C.P.C., in every case, the examination in chief of witness shall be an affidavit. But the form of affidavit is not provided in C.P.C. Rule Nos.34 to 52 of Chapter-IV of Civil Rules of Practice, 1980 deal with affidavits.

“34.Interpretation of words, 35. Form, 36. Description of deponent, 37. Title of affidavits, 38. Before whom may be sworn, 39.Statement of Officer before whom affidavit is sworn, 40.Interlineations, alteration, etc., 41. Deponent to be identified, 42. Identification of a pardanashin woman deponent, 43. Blind or illiterate deponent, 44. Filing, 45. Notice of filing, 46. Affidavits not to be filed without proper endorsement, 47.Description of the person or place, 48. Affidavit on information and belief, 49. Affidavit stating matter of opinion, 50. Striking out scandalous matter, 51. Documents referred to in affidavit, 52. Cross examination on affidavit.

Among them, the Rules most relevant to the discussion are the following:

35. Form: - Every affidavit shall be drawn up in the first person and divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, and each paragraph as nearly as may be, shall be confined to a district portion of the subject.

Every affidavit shall be written or typed or printed and stitched book wise. The deponent shall sign at the foot of each page of the affidavit.

36. Description of deponent:- Every person making an affidavit shall subscribe his full name, the name of his father, his age, place of residence and his trade or occ