STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (HOME), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR Vs. P THOIBA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Pinky, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 06-04-2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal East, Manipur by which the prayer of the respondents/ plaintiffs to file additional affidavit has been allowed.

(3.) 3.1 The facts of the case as narrated in the Civil Revision Petition are that the respondents/ plaintiffs had filed a suit being O.S. No. 37/2008/9/2015 on 16-06-2008 seeking certain reliefs and in particular, the direction for declaration that the respondents/ plaintiffs have perfected their rights of title of over their respective suit land by virtue of adverse possession for having possessed the suit land for more than 40 years uninterruptedly, continuously, openly and adversely. A written statement dated 01-08-2008, denying the averments made in the plaint except those admitted specifically therein, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners/ defendants stating therein that the plaintiffs are not residing in and around the area of 2nd Bn. Manipur Rifles covered by C.S. Dag No. 638 and C.S. Dag No. 603. In order to lead evidence, an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief was filed on behalf of the respondents/ plaintiffs by the respondent No.1/ plaintiff No.1 as PW No. 3 on 10-09-2015 and immediately thereafter, the respondents / plaintiffs filed a Judl. Misc. Case No.179 of 2015 praying for allowing them to withdraw the said affidavit of the PW No. 3 and to file another affidavit on the ground that due to bonafide mistake and inadvertence, an error had crept in with respect to Schedule-B while describing the boundary of the suit land in the said affidavit. The petitioners/ defendants filed an objection stating that the examination-in-chief once filed by way of an affidavit, could not be amended or withdrawn under any provisions of the CPC as dispensation of oral evidence by way of examination-in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 does not dispense with the procedure for recording of evidence. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal East, Manipur vide its order dated 27-11-2015 rejected the prayer for withdrawal of the said affidavit dated 10-09-2015 on the ground that the examination-in-chief, once filed by way of an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4, becomes a part of the record and cannot be withdrawn.