In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 5976 of 2015

Date of Decision: 17.05.2016

Jagdish Kumar and Others

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

M/s Countrywide Promoters Private Limited

... Respondent(s)

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekher Dhawan.

1.

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be

allowed to see judgment?

Yes

2

To be referred to reporters or not?

3

Whether the judgment should be reported in

the Digest?

Yes

Present:

Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate

for the respondent(s).

Shekher Dhawan, J.

Petition petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India for setting aside order dated 11.8.2015, passed by learned Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, whereby application, filed by the

plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for allowing Mr. D.P.Khatana, Advocate

to put his signatures on affidavit Ex.PW.1/A or to place his new affidavit,

was allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the said

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2016.05.19 10:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Civil Revision No. 5976 of 2015

2

order, took the plea that witness Mr. D.P.Khatana, Advocate was

examined as PW.1 and he had tendered into evidence his affidavit

Ex.PW.1/A. He was cross-examined by the defendants and thereafter,

an application was filed by the plaintiff on 15.1.2015 seeking permission

to allow Mr. D.P.Khatana, Advocate to put his signatures on affidavit

Ex.PW.1/A. The said application cannot be allowed because the same

amounts to tampering of record and just to fill up the lacuna of the

case, which is legally not permissible.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

Court below has already decided the application because the witness

was examined and the contents of affidavit were well within the

knowledge of the petitioner when the cross-examination of Mr.

D.P.Khatana, Advocate (PW.1) was started. There was no reason for

the deponent not to put his signatures on the affidavit (Ex.PW.1/A) and

just because of inadvertence, the said affidavit remained unsigned.

Though the deposition by way of examination-in-chief was admitted to

be correct by the witness during his cross-examination. The Court

below rightly accepted the contention of the respondent and application

under Section 151 CPC.

Having considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that in such

like proceedings during trial, the Court is certainly vested with powers

under Section 151 CPC to correct any error and in fact the said section

is meant for that purpose. More so, perusal of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC

shows that now the examination-in-chief of a witness is to be recorded

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2016.05.19 10:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Civil Revision No. 5976 of 2015

3

by way of affidavit and copy there of is to be supplied to the opposite

party. For ready reference, Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, which was

incorporated vide amendment dated 1.7.2002, reads as follow:

“4.

Recording of evidence.-(1) In every case, the

examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and

copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by

the party who calls him for evidence:

Provided that where documents are filed and the parties

rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of

such documents which are filed along with affidavit shall be

subject to the orders of the Court.

(2)

The evidence (cross-examination and reexamination)

of the witness in attendance, whose evidence

(examination-in-chief) by affidavit has been furnished to

the Court shall be taken either by the Court or by the

Commissioner appointed by it:

Provided that the Court may, while appointing a

commission under this sub-rule, consider taking into

account such relevant factors as it thinks fit.”

Prior to the incorporation of Rule 4