Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.2.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for taking on record the affidavit of witness - Atma Ram under Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC has been rejected. The witness -Atma Ram was summoned under Order XVI, Rule 1 CPC by the petitioner, however, when he was present before the Court on 5.1.2015 forgiving his statement, the petitioner dropped the said witness and expressed not to produce the said witness. Thereafter, on 27.1.2015, affidavit dated 29.9.2014 said to have been sworn by said Atma Ram was sought to be produced under Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC, which was opposed by the respondents and after hearing the parties, the trial court rejected the application.
(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application under the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC, the petitioner is free to produce affidavit of any witness and whereafter the Court can examine as to what use the said affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC can be put to. It is submitted that witness Atma Ram was produced by the petitioner, however, on account of the fact that he was won over by the respondents, he was dropped and whereafter as he had already sworn an affidavit, the same was produced. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India, : (2003) 1 SCC 49, wherein the procedure under Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC as inserted by way of amendment made in the year 2002 in relation to the Order XVI, Rule 1 CPC have been explained.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial court.;