Supreme Court of India Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005 Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 3353, (2005) 4 BOM CR 839 CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 496 of 2002 PETITIONER: Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil Nadu RESPONDENT: Union of India DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/08/2005 Y.K.Sabharwal, D.M.Dharmadikhari & Tarun Chatterjee JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [With Writ Petition (Civil) No.570 of 2002] Y.K. Sabharwal, J. The challenge made to the constitutional validity of amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') by Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002 was rejected by this Court {Salem Advocates Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India [(2003) 1 SCC 49]}, but it was noticed in the judgment that modalities have to be formulated for the manner in which Section 89 of the Code and, for that matter, the other provisions which have been introduced by way of amendments, may have to be operated. For this purpose, a Committee headed by a former Judge of this Court and Chairman, Law Commission of India (Justice M. Jagannadha Rao) was constituted so as to ensure that the amendments become effective and result in quicker dispensation of justice. It was further observed that the Committee may consider devising a model case management formula as well as rules and regulations which should be followed while taking recourse to the Alternate Disputes Resolution (ADR) referred to in Section 89. It was also observed that the model rules, with or without modification, which are formulated may be adopted by the High Courts concerned for giving effect to Section 89(2)(d) of the Code. Further, it was observed that if any difficulties are felt in the working of the amendments, the same can be placed before the Committee which would consider the same and make necessary suggestions in its report. The Committee has filed the report. The report is in three parts. Report 1 contains the consideration of the various grievances relating to amendments to the Code and the recommendations of the Committee. Report 2 contains the consideration of various points raised in connection with draft rules for ADR and mediation as envisaged by Section 89 of the Code read with Order X Rule 1A, 1B and 1C. It also contains model Rules. Report 3 contains a conceptual appraisal of case management. It also contains the model rules of case management. First, we will consider Report 1 which deals with the amendments made to the Code. Report No.1 Amendment inserting subsection (2) to Section 26 and Rule 15(4) to Order VI Rule 15. Prior to insertion of aforesaid provisions, there was no requirement of filing affidavit with the pleadings. These provisions now require the plaint to be accompanied by an affidavit as provided in Section 26(2) and the person verifying the pleadings to furnish an affidavit in support of the pleading [Order VI Rule 15(4)]. It was sought to be contended that the requirement of filing an affidavit is illegal and unnecessary in view of the existing requirement of verification of the pleadings. We are unable to agree. The affidavit required to be filed under amended Section 26(2) and Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code has the effect of fixing additional responsibility on the deponent as to the truth of the facts stated in the pleadings. It is, however, made clear that such an affidavit would not be evidence for the purpose of the trial. Further, on amendment of the pleadings, a fresh affidavit shall have to be filed in consonance thereof. Amendment of Order XVIII Rule 4 The amendment provides that in every case, the examinationin chief of a witness shall be on affidavit. The Court has already been vested with power to permit affidavits to be filed as evidence as provided in Order XIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. It has to be kept in view that the right of crossexamination and reexamination in open court has not been disturbed by Order XVIII Rule 4 inserted by amendment. It is true that after the amendment crossexamination can be before a Commissioner but we feel that no exception can be taken in regard to the power of the legislature to amend the Code and provide for the examinationinchief to be on affidavit or crossexamination before a Commissioner. The scope of Order XVIII Rule 4 has been examined and its validity upheld in Salem Advocates Bar Association's case. There is also no question of inadmissible documents being read into evidence merely on account of such documents being given exhibit numbers in the affidavit filed by way of examinationinchief. Further, in Salem Advocates Bar Association's case, it has been held that the trial court in appropriate cases can permit the examinationinchief to be recorded in the Court. Proviso to subrule (2) of Rule 4 of Order XVIII clear