THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4763 OF 2009 And C.R.P.No.5083 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/plaintiff filed these revision petitions against the common order, dated 29.08.2009 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry, in I.A.Nos.530 and 529 of 2009 in O.S.No.534 of 2008. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the above suit, filed I.A.No.529 of 2009 to reopen the suit and I.A.No.530 of 2009 to receive the fresh chief affidavit of PW.1 by substituting his earlier chief affidavit, stating that since there was no affirmation paragraph and attestation of the advocate in the chief affidavit of PW.1, it filed the said affidavit as contemplated under Order 18, Rule 4 C.P.C., and there is no wilful laches on the part of the petitioner, and hence the same can be cured at any stage. The respondent/first defendant filed counter opposing the applications stating that when once the evidence is completed, the party cannot be permitted to substitute his affidavit which amounts to withdraw the earlier examination in chief and substitution of fresh examination in chief. The lower Court held that PW.1 filed the chief affidavit contemplated under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. on 9.04.2009 and on 28.04.2009 he confronted the said affidavit and stated on oath before the Court that the affidavit contents are true and are at his instructions. On the said day itself Ex.A.1 to A.15 were admitted in evidence of PW.1, and he was subjected to cross-examination by the defendant on that day itself. The learned counsel for the first defendant, except confining his cross-examination only in respect of the said affirmation and non-attestation by the attesting officer, did not do any material cross-examination, which shows that PW.1 tendered his evidence and faced the test of cross-examination. Whether the evidence of PW.1 has to be eschewed and it can be relied upon for non having affirmation to the chief affidavit of PW.1 and lack of attestation by the attesting officer, is a point for determination in the suit. When once PW.1 tendered his chief evidence followed by cross-examination, he cannot be permitted to substitute his evidence, and accordingly dismissed both the I.As. Hence these revision petitions. In view of the fact that the affirmation of the petitioner that the contents in the affidavit in chief are true and at his instructions, it is for the lower Court to consider whether the said affidavit can be relied upon or not. Hence no infirmity is discernable in the order passed by the lower Court warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 22nd October, 2009 Js.