1 C.R. No. 776 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Revision No. 776 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.11.2009 Jagtar Singh --- Petitioner Versus Narinder Singh and others --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL *** PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sood, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner-defendant No.1 has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 2.2.2009 whereby the trial court permitted PW-1, Jalaura Singh, to file his fresh affidavit as his examination-in-chief. As per the facts on record, the defendants raised an objection that the affidavit furnished in the Court by PW-1 Jalaura Singh was inadmissible in evidence as the same had not been attested as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court Rules and Orders. The trial court, however, over-ruled the said objection and permitted PW-1 to file fresh affidavit as his examination-in-chief. 2 C.R. No. 776 of 2009 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court was not right in its approach while allowing a witness to furnish his fresh affidavit as his examination-in-chief once he had already filed such affidavit in the court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The trial court has repeatedly observed in the impugned order, while allowing PW-1 to furnish his fresh affidavit, that simply because the earlier affidavit furnished by him was not found to be in order, inasmuch as it was detected to have not been properly attested, the witness could not have been debarred from stating the truth in the Court. The trial court, thus, permitted the filing of fresh affidavit as examination-in-chief of PW-1. There is no force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner nor could he point out any infirmity or error of law in the impugned order so as to persuade this Court to interfere therewith. Once the earlier affidavit was found to have not been duly attested as per requirements of the law/rules, the trial court has rightly permitted the witness to furnish his fresh affidavit as his examination-in-chief. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) November 16, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*