In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6958 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 30, 2009 JCT Limited Phagwara .. Petitioner Vs. East India Transport Agency and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 3.8.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Phagwara declining the request of the petitioner to tender supplementary examination in chief by way of supplementary affidavit. The petitioner had already tendered into evidence his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PA. Cross examination has not been conducted upon him and the case was adjourned to 19.2.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for tendering supplementary affidavit Ex.PA dated 6.10.2008 for adding to his examination in chief to be read with the earlier affidavit Ex.PA dated 10.8.2007. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner weigh with the mind of this court as both the affidavits are part of examination in chief. Cross examination had not so far been conducted upon him, therefore, the facts, if any, came to happen during the subsequent period the same could be brought on record and there was no bar to file additional affidavit to supplement his examination in chief so long as cross examination had not commenced. Similar proposition arose in case Rajesh Verma vs. Aminex Holdings & Investments & Ors. 2008 (3) Civil Court Cases 160 (Bombay) wherein it was observed as under :- “12. The Counsel for the Defendants, would, however, argue that in the examination-in-chief, the Plaintiff has made no Civil Revision No. 6958 of 2009 -2- *** mention about the fact as to who had signed the said document and whether it was signed in his presence or that he was in a position to identify the signature appearing on the said document. According to the Defendants, this evidence ought to have come in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief as is required to be filed in terms of Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC. It was argued that although the Plaintiff later on entered the witness box and his further examination-in-chief has been recorded by the Court, in which all necessary details are mentioned in relation to the suit Bill of Exchange, that evidence cannot be looked into. This argument deserves to be merely stated to be rejected. There is nothing in the amended CPC which precludes the Court from recording further examination-in-chief of the Plaintiff. In the present case, recording of further examination-in-chief of the Plaintiff was necessitated as the Defendants admitted all documents relied by the Plaintiffs, except the suit Bill of Exchange. For that reason, the Plaintiff, upon entering the witness box, was first examined for the purpose of further examination-in-chief. He deposed about the details in relation to the execution of said document, whereafter the document was taken on record and marked as Exhibit P9. Ideally, the Plaintiff could have spoken about such details in the affidavit filed in lieu of examination- in-chief. However, failure to mention those details in the affidavit does not preclude the Plaintiff to enter into the witness box to depose further; nor does it preclude the Court from permitting the Plaintiff to lead further evidence of examination-in-chief before the Court in addition to the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief already placed on record, filed in terms of Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC. All that the Court ought to ensure is that the Defendants gets fair opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiff on matters deposed by him in the further examination-in-chief.” Civil Revision No. 6958 of 2009 -3- *** The documents which are sought to be tendered by way of examination in chief vide affidavit came into existence subsequently, as such, these could be proved by the witness in examination in chief to which the defendant would have full opportunity to cross examine. To direct the plaintiff to move the application for additional evidence and then to invite application for examination would only complicate the issues and result into miscarriage of justice. However, the inconvenience or the grievances as occurred to the defendant for not disclosing the facts by way of first affidavit could be compensated by way of costs. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move to this court for recalling this order. November 30, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge