AMEER TRADING CORPORATION LTD. versus SHAPOORJI DATA PROCESSING LTD.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 18-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AMEER TRADING CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
SHAPOORJI DATA PROCESSING LTD. 
NOVEMBER 18, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 18 Rule 4 (as amended)-Examination-in-Chief-Recording of 
C evidence in every case-By affidavit-Held: Order 18 Rule 4 does not make 
any distinction between appealab/e and non-appea/ab/e cases-Examination-
in-Chief of a witness is to be tendered on affidavit whether the case is 
appea/able or not. 
D 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Purposive construction-For the purpose of interpretation of statutes 
the same has to be in its entirety. 
Words and Phrases: 
"In every case "-Meaning of-In the context of Order 18 Rule 4 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
The respondent filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes for eviction of 
the appellant from the suit premises. The respondent filed an affidavit under 
F Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being his examination-
in-chief to be taken as evidence in the suit. 
The appellant filed an application objecting to the said affidavit on the 
ground that the decree, which might be passed in the suit being an appealable 
one, Order 18 Rule 5 of the CPC, would be applicable and, therefore, the 
G respondent was required to be examined in open court. The trial court rejected 
the application and the High Court upheld this order. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does 
H 
634 
AMEER TRADING CORPN. LTD. 1·. SHAPOORJ!DA TA PROCESSING LTD. 
63 5 
not make any distinction between appealable and non-appealable cases so far A 
as the mode of recording of evidence is concerned. Such a difference is to be 
found only in Rules 5 and 13 of Order 18 of the Code. J640-CJ 
1.2. The examination-in-chief of a witness including the party to a suit 
is to be tendered on affidavit. The expression "in every case" occurring in 
• Order 18 Rule 4 is significant. What, thus, remains, viz., cross-examination B 
or re-examination in the appealable cases will have to be considered in the 
manner laid down in the Rules, subject to the other sub-rules of Rule 4. The 
amendment to the Code was made by the Parliament consciously and, thus, 
full effect thereto must be given. [640-D-E, Fl 
2. Heydon's Rule has been applied by this Court in a large number of C 
cases in order to suppress the mischief, which was intended to be remedied 
as against the literal rule, which could have otherwise covered the field. 
[641-FJ 
Smt. PEK Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi. AIR (1996) SC 1963; Bengal D 
Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR (1956) SC 661 and Goodyear India 
Ltd v. State of Haryana, AIR (1990) SC 781, relied on. 
Heydon 's case: 3 Co Rep. 7a, 76 ER 637, referred to. 
3. For the purpose of interpretation of a statute the same has to be in E 
its entirety. The principles of purposive construction must come into play. 
[641-G-HJ 
Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India, [2003) 7 SCC 589, 
relied on. 
Chiefjustice of A.P. v. L. V.A. Dikshitulu, [1979) 2 SCC 34; Kehar Singh 
v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR (1988) SC 1883; District Mining Officer v. Tata 
Iron and Steel Co. JT(2001) (6) 183 and East India Hotels Ltd, v. Union of 
India (2001 J SCC 284, referred to. 
F 
4.1. Presence of a party during examination-in-chief is not imperative. G 
If any objection is taken to any statement made in the affidavit, as for example, 
that a statement has been made beyond the pleadings, such an objection can 
always be taken before the court in writing and in any event, the attention of 
the witness can always be drawn while cross-examining him. The defendant 
would not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever if the examination-in-chief 
is taken on an affidavit and in the event, he desires to cross-examine the said H 
636 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20031 SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A witness he would be permitted to do so in the open court. There may be cases 
where a party may not feel the necessity of cross-examining a witness, 
examined on behalf of the other side. The time of the court would not be wasted 
in examining such a witness in open court. (644-G-H; 645-A( 
F.D.C. ltd. v. Federation of Medical Representatives Association India, 
B (FMRAI) AIR (2003) Born 371, approved. 
laxman Das v. Deoji Mal, AIR (2003) Raj 74, impliedly overruled 
4.2. Applying the principles of interpretation of statute, there is no doubt 
that Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 are
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.