AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Analysing the retrieved Case Laws

Scanned Judgements…!

AI Overview...

Acceptance of Order 18 Rule 4 Affidavits Post-Amendment - Affidavits filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC prior to the insertion of Rule 4-A remain valid and on record, provided they were submitted before the amendment. The courts have recognized that such affidavits, once filed before the amendment, are admissible and unaffected by subsequent procedural changes ["Jagdish Prasad Gupta vs Vijay Kumar Bandil - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Tarun Kumar Gupta vs Vijay Kumar Bandil - Madhya Pradesh"].
Impact of Order 18 Rule 4 Acceptance on Subsequent Amendments - When affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 are accepted before the amendment, subsequent amendments or procedural modifications (like Rule 4-A) do not invalidate or render these affidavits unacceptable. The courts have emphasized that affidavits already on record prior to amendments retain their validity, and procedural changes are to be applied prospectively ["Jagdish Prasad Gupta vs Vijay Kumar Bandil - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Tarun Kumar Gupta vs Vijay Kumar Bandil - Madhya Pradesh"].
Order 18 Rule 17 and Its Relation to Amendments - Challenges to amendments made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, especially when accepted with costs, are generally barred if the party has accepted the costs or the order is in the nature of a conditional order. The Supreme Court has held that accepting costs under such amendments creates estoppel, and challenging such orders would amount to nullifying the effect of acceptance ["PRABHAKAR SAHOO vs SESADEV SAHOO - Orissa"], ["PRABHAKAR SAHOO vs SESADEV SAHOO - Orissa"].
Amendments at Late Stages and Their Permissibility - Courts have taken a cautious approach regarding amendments filed at advanced stages of trial, especially when facts were within the knowledge of parties but not incorporated timely. Such amendments are often disallowed if they cause prejudice or are mala fide, and are subject to the proviso under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ["PRABHAKAR SAHOO vs SESADEV SAHOO - Orissa"], ["INDOR00000092378"].
Procedural Compliance under Order 18 Rule 3A - Evidence by affidavit under Order 18 Rule 3A CPC requires prior permission from the court before examination of witnesses. Failure to seek such permission renders the evidence inadmissible, and courts have criticized lower courts for allowing evidence without proper procedural compliance ["RAMASAMY vs BASKARAN @ KUPPUSAMY - Madras"].

Analysis and Conclusion

Affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 filed before the amendment are still acceptable and remain on record. The courts have clarified that such affidavits, once submitted prior to the insertion of Rule 4-A, are valid and do not become inadmissible solely due to the amendment.
Acceptance of amendments under Order 18 Rule 4 (or related rules) does not automatically negate the validity of affidavits filed earlier, especially if they were filed in accordance with existing procedures.
Challenging such accepted amendments or affidavits is limited when costs are accepted or when the order is in the nature of a conditional order, as estoppel applies.
Procedural requirements, such as seeking permission before filing proof affidavits under Order 18 Rule 3A, are mandatory, and courts have taken a strict view on non-compliance.

In summary, Order 18 Rule Affidavits filed prior to the amendment (such as Rule 4-A) remain acceptable even if the plaintiff's Order 18 Rule 4 application is accepted. The acceptability hinges on timely filing and procedural compliance, and amendments or procedural changes generally do not retroactively invalidate affidavits already on record.

Order 18 Rule 4: Are Affidavits Acceptable After Amendment If Plaintiff's is Filed?

In civil litigation in India, efficiency is key, especially with mounting case backlogs. One burning question for lawyers and litigants alike is: Whether Order 18 Rule Affidavit is Acceptable after Amendment, if Plaintiffs Order 18 Rule 4 Accepted? This query arises frequently post the 2002 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which revolutionized how witness evidence is presented.

Gone are the days of lengthy oral examinations-in-chief. Instead, affidavits now serve as the primary mode, promising faster trials. But are these affidavits truly admissible as evidence, particularly after the plaintiff's affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 has been accepted? Let's dive into the judicial interpretations, statutory provisions, and practical implications to provide clarity. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

Understanding Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and Its 2002 Amendment

Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC governs the recording of evidence in civil suits. Prior to the 2002 amendment, witnesses typically gave oral examination-in-chief. The amendment shifted this to affidavits, making it mandatory in every case to file affidavits in lieu of chief examination Sharifa Dost Mohammed (Deleted) vs Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 474.

The legislative intent was clear: expedite trials and curb delays. As noted in judicial discourse, the amendments introduced in 2002 to Order 18 Rule 4 aimed at expediting the trial process by replacing oral examination-in-chief with affidavits filed by witnesses Sharifa Dost Mohammed (Deleted) vs Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 474. The Supreme Court in Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 702 affirmed that such affidavits are treated as evidence, subject to court scrutiny K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667.

Once the plaintiff's affidavit under this rule is accepted, does it pave the way for defendants' affidavits? Generally, yes—provided procedural compliance.

Main Legal Finding: Affidavits Are Acceptable as Evidence

Post-amendment, affidavits filed under Order 18 Rule 4 are acceptable as evidence, even if the case is appealable. Courts have consistently upheld this, emphasizing proper verification and filing K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667 Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923.

Key points include:- Mandatory Nature: Examination-in-chief on affidavit is now the norm Sharifa Dost Mohammed (Deleted) vs Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 474.- Validity in Appeals: Affidavits are admissible in appealable cases if properly filed, with courts scrutinizing documents K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667 Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa VS Shamrao Vishnu Kunjir - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 354.- Proviso to Rule 4(1): Proof and admissibility of accompanying documents remain subject to court orders Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923.

The Supreme Court clarified: affidavits are not automatically evidence without court admission, and cross-examination may be required unless waived Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa VS Shamrao Vishnu Kunjir - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 354 K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667.

Detailed Analysis: Effect of Amendment on Affidavit Acceptability

Expediting Trials Through Affidavits

The amendment's object was efficiency, reducing oral testimony's time consumption. In Salem Advocates and allied cases, courts reinforced that affidavits substitute oral chief effectively Sharifa Dost Mohammed (Deleted) vs Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 474.

If the plaintiff's Order 18 Rule 4 affidavit is accepted, defendants can typically file theirs similarly. For instance, in a case where issues were framed and the affidavit filed, the court noted the need for due diligence in subsequent applications, implying acceptance as standard procedure: Affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC has also been filed Smt. Pooja Dantale vs Shrichand Gond - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 41859.

Admissibility in Appealable Cases

Even in cases headed for appeal, affidavits hold water. Courts hold they are acceptable if verified correctly, though the deponent may need to affirm contents in the witness box Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa VS Shamrao Vishnu Kunjir - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 354. However, proper filing often suffices, with documents undergoing probative value checks K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667.

Court's Discretion and Scrutiny

Courts retain robust powers. The proviso ensures documents aren't auto-admitted; judicial orders decide. This balances speed with fairness: the proof and admissibility of documents filed along with affidavits shall be subject to the orders of the court Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923.

Affidavits themselves, if compliant, are generally not rejected on mere procedural nitpicks Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa VS Shamrao Vishnu Kunjir - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 354.

Exceptions, Limitations, and Practical Scenarios

While broadly acceptable, pitfalls exist:- Improper Verification: May lead to rejection K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667.- Document Proof: Court can exclude unreliable exhibits Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923.- Cross-Examination: Not always mandatory, but court may direct deponent appearance Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa VS Shamrao Vishnu Kunjir - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 354.

Other judicial contexts highlight post-affidavit dynamics. For example, attempts to recall witnesses under Order 18 Rule 17 post-affidavit filing have been scrutinized, with courts rejecting deviations from the scheme: That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC... is not at all acceptable DIGUMARTHI SURESH BABU vs B A S GRANITES - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 30432 DIGUMARTHI SURESH BABU vs B A S GRANITES - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9172 DIGUMARTHI SURESH BABU vs B A S GRANITES - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 29094 DIGUMARTHI SURESH BABU vs B A S GRANITES - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9173. This underscores sticking to Rule 4's affidavit protocol once initiated.

In scenarios like plaintiff expirations or party substitutions (e.g., under Order 1 Rule 10), affidavits remain central, but fresh compliance is needed DIGUMARTHI SURESH BABU vs B A S GRANITES - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 30432.

Judicial Clarifications: A Consistent View

Precedents form a cohesive narrative:- Affidavits as valid substitutes for expedition Sharifa Dost Mohammed (Deleted) vs Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 474.- Admissible post-filing, subject to verification K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667.- No automatic exclusion; court's role is facilitative Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa VS Shamrao Vishnu Kunjir - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 354.

Recommendations for Litigants and Courts

To leverage this provision effectively:- For Parties: Verify affidavits meticulously, attach documents with proof trails, and anticipate cross-examination. File promptly after plaintiff's acceptance to align with trial momentum.- For Courts: Exercise discretion judiciously, prioritizing amendment's speed goal while protecting cross-rights.- Prepare for potential challenges, like those seen in recall applications under Rule 17, which courts view skeptically post-affidavit DIGUMARTHI SURESH BABU vs B A S GRANITES - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9173.

Key Takeaways and Conclusion

In summary, after the 2002 amendment, Order 18 Rule 4 affidavits are generally acceptable as evidence if the plaintiff's is accepted—provided procedural rigor and court nod on documents. This holds across appealable cases, balancing efficiency with justice K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667 Sharifa Dost Mohammed (Deleted) vs Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 474.

Exceptions hinge on compliance lapses, but the trend favors admissibility to decongest courts. Litigants should view affidavits as a strategic tool, not a shortcut.

References:1. Sharifa Dost Mohammed (Deleted) vs Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 474: Legislative intent and mandatory affidavits.2. K. K. Velusamy VS N. Palanisamy - 2011 2 Supreme 667: Admissibility in appeals, court scrutiny.3. Radhey Shyam Garg VS Naresh Kumar Gupta - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 923: Proviso on documents.4. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa VS Shamrao Vishnu Kunjir - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 354: Deponent appearance, judicial discretion.5. Smt. Pooja Dantale vs Shrichand Gond - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 41859: Post-framing affidavit filing.6. Related Rule 17 contexts: DIGUMARTHI SURESH BABU vs B A S GRANITES - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 30432, DIGUMARTHI SURESH BABU vs B A S GRANITES - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9172, DIGUMARTHI SURESH BABU vs B A S GRANITES - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 29094, DIGUMARTHI SURESH BABU vs B A S GRANITES - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9173.

Stay informed on CPC evolutions—efficient evidence presentation can make or break your case. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts.

#Order18Rule4, #CPCAffidavit, #LegalEvidence