IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1850 of 2008 SATYA DEVI & ANR Versus BHARAT JI PRASAD ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Sharma, Advocate For the Opp. Party : M/s. Nagendra Rai, Advocate Navin Nikunj, Advocate ---------- 3/ 18.05.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The revision petition is to be allowed. The admitted position is that some witnesses were heard by the court itself and their evidence was recorded by the court on its own deposition sheet. Some of the witnesses filed their evidence on affidavit as per the provision of Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After close of evidence of both the parties and after hearing, the court below posted the Title Suit No. 156 of 2004 for passing judgment and the court, being confronted with the above situation, had a doubt lingering in its mind as to what could be the effect of procedure adopted by Judge, predecessor in office to him. The court below heard the parties and had expunged the evidence recorded by it and thereafter put the suit for evidence again. It may be pointed out that taking of evidence is not a matter of strict procedural relevance. This could be the discretion of the court as to how it has to record and receive the evidence. If there are methods and modes of receiving evidence as presently available by virtue of provision under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, then the court should not be stricter on the mode of - 2 - receiving evidence. Before the advent of the new provision through amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, the courts in early days were also not so strict the court appears being in the present case on the mode of recording evidence. The court has only to consider as to whether evidence is admissible and within the terms of pleadings of the parties. If it is, then the mode is not of much substance. For the reasons stated presently as indicated at the very outset, this Civil Revision is allowed and the court is directed to read the evidence duly recorded by it in the suit which it had expunged by its order dated 17.7.2008 and decide the suit on its merit. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)