CRP 173/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY Heard Mr. B.R.Dey, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mrs. B.Sarkar, learned cou nsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel as sisted by Mr. P.Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. The present petitioner instituted a Title Suit No.17/2000 in th e court of the learned Munsiff, Charaidew, Sonari, Dist. Sivasagar for declarati on of right, title, khas possession and permanent injunction restraining the def endants from disturbing in any manner. The respondents contested the said suit b y filing written statement. The plaintiff, present petitioner submitted list of 3 witnesses .Out of 3 witnesses, 2 witnesses were examined and discharged. The 3 rd witness, namely, Sri Milan Urang could not be examined as he was reported to be ill and he was not in a position to attend the court for cross examination an d accordingly the plaintiff requested the learned trial court to expunge his evi dence and to allow the plaintiff to submit evidence on affidavit of 2 listed wit nesses, namely, Sri Mukidhar Gogoi and Sri Jhulan @ Ram Trahan Garh. The opposit e parties/respondents filed objection and the learned trial court rejected the a pplication filed by the plaintiff/ present petitioner vide impugned order dated 17.3.2010, which is under challenge in this revision petition. Mr. B.R.Dey, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits t hat since the aforesaid 2 witnesses are listed witnesses, there is no legal bar to producing and examining them to prove the plaintiff’s case. To impress this c ourt, he cited the case of Bhagwan Swaroop & Ors Vs Mool Chand and Ors, reported in AIR 1983 SC 355, wherein it has been held that a Code of Procedure ’ is desi gned to facilitate justice and further its ends and it is not a penal enactment for punishment and penalty and not a thing designed to trip people up’. The rele vant question in this case is as to whether the plaintiff can produce/examine a witness who has been cited but has not filed evidence on affidavit as has been sought to be done in the present case. Admittedly, no evidence on affidavit has been filed by the afore said witnesses who are now sought to be examined by the plaintiff/petitioner, un der Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. After the amendment of the CPC, the parties are require d to file list of witnesses and also evidence on affidavit along with the docume nts. There is no scope for examination of other person, even the cited witness es. Admittedly, the aforesaid 2 persons, although listed as witnesses, did not file evidence on affidavit. In that view of the matter, the demand of the petitioner to allow him to submit evidence on affidavit of the aforesaid 2 persons, namely, Sri Mukidhar G ogoi and Sri Jhulan @ Ram Trahan Garh is totally misconceived. There is no meri t in the present petition and accordingly it is dismissed. However, in the inter est of justice, the petitioner is allowed to produce PW 3, Sri Milan Urang for c ross examination on a date to be fixed by the learned court below, if so advised .