THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2972 OF 2011 30th August, 2011. BETWEEN: K.SESHARATNAM .. PETITIONER AND KODALI RAMATULASAMMA AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2972 OF 2011 O R D E R : The plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He calls in question the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli in I.A.No.169 of 2011 moved by the plaintiff in O.S.No.70 of 2005 seeking permission of the court to recall the evidence of P.W.1 for the purpose of receiving the correct affidavit-in-chief of the said witness. It is pointed out that the affidavit-in-chief of P.W.1 is filed into the court to obviate the necessity of examining the said witness-in-chief over a long length of time. Copy of the affidavit was served on the opposite side. P.W.1 was examined. The affidavit-in-chief has already been taken on record by the court and cross-examination of P.W.1 was also accomplished. However, while submitting arguments in the suit learned counsel for the defendants has sprung a surprise on the other side as well as on the court by pointing out that the affidavit-in-chief of P.W.1 was not attested by an advocate and consequently it does not satisfy the requirements of law to be treated as an affidavit and hence suggested to the court to ignore the same. At this stage, the plaintiff realised the fault committed by him and he therefore moved I.A.No.169 of 2011 seeking leave of the court for recalling P.W.1 only for the purpose of receiving the affidavit-in-chief of P.W.1. That application was dismissed by the court. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri.G.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.A.V.Seshasai learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants. It was contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the defect in filing the affidavit-in-chief cannot be cured as of now and therefore the proceedings have to be taken to their logical conclusion with the available material on record and no attempt should be made or allowed by the plaintiff to substitute the affidavit-in-chief of P.W.1, at this stage, in the matter. Pursuant to various measures taken to cut short the consumption of judicial time of courts, the practice of receiving affidavit-in-chief of witnesses has been introduced as a measure to save lot of courts’ time. Whenever a copy of the said affidavit is tendered to the opposite party and then the witness is made available for cross-examination the proceedings can be concluded in quick time. At the time when the affidavit-in-chief of P.W.1 was filed into the court, care should have been taken by the plaintiff as well as the deponent of the affidavit to ensure that it is in a proper form and it complies with the requirements of attestation. Unfortunately, this element of care was lacking. It is rather sad to note that the attention of the court has escaped on this aspect of the matter also. It has already taken on record the defective affidavit-in-chief of P.W.1 and allowed P.W.1 to be cross-examined on the strength and basis of the said affidavit. In other words, the contents of the defective affidavit-in-chief of P.W.1 have become part of the record. Therefore, the ends of justice require that it should be substituted with a proper affidavit-in-chief of P.W.1. At my request learned counsel for the respondents has verified the contents of the defective affidavit-in-chief and the correctly drawn up one. The contents in both are verbatim the same and there was no change or improvement attempted in the process. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to allow the Civil Revision Petition and treat as if P.W.1 has already been recalled and receive the correct affidavit-in-chief of P.W.1 as a substitution for the defective affidavit-in-chief of P.W.1 already filed into the court. This step has been resorted to to avoid recalling P.W.1 and also to avoid a temptation of enlarging the scope of evidence, which is already recorded of P.W.1. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, but, however the petitioner/plaintiff will deposit a sum of Rs.500/- to the credit of the suit of Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli, who will disburse the said amount to the parties who have succeeded ultimately in the suit as additional costs. Dt: 30-08-2011. ( NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO, J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2972 OF 2011 30TH August, 2011. tnb