JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This order is meant to dispose of the question as to "whether the evidence in a Civil Suit in the High Court is to be recorded in the manner as provided under Rule 4 of Order XVIII/of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereafer referred to as the Amending Act) and not in any other manner?" 2. The brief facts raising the aforesaid question for determination are that a suit for recovery of money instituted by the plaintiff on 24.4.2001 is pending disposal in this Court. The defendants are contesting the claim as made in the suit. The suit was listed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff on 1.7.2002. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, submitted that in view of the coming into force of the amended provisions of the Code with effect from 1.7.2002, the procedure for recording evidence stood changed by virtue of Rule 4 of Order XVIII of the Code as substituted by the Amending Act, therefore, the plaintiff may be given time to file affidavits of the witnesses in evidence. The submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff was disputed by the learned counsel for the defendants. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that Rule 4 of Order XVIII of the Code as amended, read with Section 16 of the Amending Act, clearly lays down that the evidence in a civil suit is to be recorded in the manner as provided under Rule 4 supra and if any other rule has been made by a State Legislature or the High Court about the manner of recording of the evidence, that stands repealed. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the examination in chief of the witnesses is required to be taken on record by way of affidavits and any rule or procedure hitherto adopted by this Court for recording the evidence, if inconsistent with the amended provisions of Order 18 of the Code, cannot be taken recourse to record the evidence as such rule/procedure stands repealed. 5. 5. To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions as contained in Part IX and Part X of the Code as it stands after the amendments made by the amending Act. 6. Section 117 of the Code provides that provisions of the Code, save and except as provided in Part IX or Part X or in the Rules, shall apply to the High Courts. Section 122 of the Code provides that the High Courts may from time to time make rules regulating their own procedure and the procedure of the Civil Courts subject to their superintendence and may by such rules annul, alter or add to all or any of the Rules in the first Schedule. Section 123 of the Code provides constitution of a committee for proposing amendment in the Rules and Sections 124 to 127 provides the manner in which the amendments may be made. Section 128 provides the ambit and scope of the powers to make amendments in the rules by virtue of the provisions of Section 122 of the Code. 7. Section 129, further empowers the High Court to make Rules as to their original civil procedure and reads as follows: "229. Power of High Courts to make rules as to their original civil procedure.—Notwithstanding anything in this Code, any High Court not being the Court of a Judicial Commissioner may make such rules not inconsistent with the Letters Patent or order or other law establishing it, to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction as it shall think fit, and nothing herein contained shall affect the validity of any such rules in force at the commencement of this Code." 8. The above Section starts with non obstante clause and overrides all provisions of the Code which may limit the powers of the High Court to make rules to regulate its original civil procedure. The only limitation on the powers of the High Court to make such rules is that the rules so made should not be inconsistent with the law establishing the High Court. Thus, the High Court has the powers to make rules, to regulate its original civil procedure irrespective of anything to the contrary contained in the Code. However, such rules should not be inconsistent with the law establishing the High Courts. 9. Thus, the High Court has the powers to make rules, to regulate its original civil procedure irrespective of anything to the contrary contained in the Code. However, such rules should not be inconsistent with the law establishing the High Courts. 9. This Court was established by virtue of the provisions of Section 21 of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970 (hereafter referred to as the Act). Section 23 of the Act prescribes the jurisdiction of this High Court in the flowing words: "23. Jurisdiction of High Court.—The High Court of Himachal Pradesh shall have in respect of any part of the territories comprised in the State of Himachal Pradesh, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, are exercisable in respect of that part of the said territories by the High Court of Delhi." 10. Section 25 providing for the practice and procedure in this High Court reads as follows : "25. Practice and Procedure in High Court Subject to the provisions of this Part, the law in force immediately before the appointed day with respect to practice and procedure in the High Court of Delhi shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh." 11. There is no dispute that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 23 and 25 supra, the provisions of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 became applicable to this High Court, as amended by the Delhi High Court (Original Side 1st H.P. Amendment) Rules, 1981 till the coming into force of the High Court of H.P. (Original Side) Rules, 1997 (hereafter referred to as the Rules) which were published in the Extra Ordinary Rajpatra, H.P. on 23.8.1997 and came into force with immediate effect. Needless to say that these rules have been framed by this Court in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 23 of the Act, Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by Act No. 104 of 1966 and Article 225 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any doubt that once the rules are framed by the High Court to regulate its original, civil procedure in conformity with the provisions of said enabling provisions, such rules will be "special law". Therefore, the Rules is a "special law" for all intents and purposes. 12. There cannot be any doubt that once the rules are framed by the High Court to regulate its original, civil procedure in conformity with the provisions of said enabling provisions, such rules will be "special law". Therefore, the Rules is a "special law" for all intents and purposes. 12. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Code reads as under : "4. Savings,—(1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force." 13. On a bare reading of the above provisions, it is unambiguously clear that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any local or special law in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed by or under any other law for the time being in force. As already stated, the Rules having been framed by the High Court, in exercise of the powers under Section 23 of the Act, Section 129 of the Code and Article 225 of the Constitution of India, is the "special law" in force providing to regulate its own procedure by this court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Be it stated here that the original side jurisdiction of the High Court has always been treated at a special footing and the High Courts exercising original civil jurisdiction, have always been governed in the exercise of such jurisdiction by their own rules instead of those in the Code. There the Rules cannot be deemed to have been repealed unless expressly repealed. Therefore, the Rules in question can be repealed only by suitably amending the provisions of Sections 4 and 129 of the Code and providing express provisions repealing such Rules. 14. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Amending Act reads as under: "26. There the Rules cannot be deemed to have been repealed unless expressly repealed. Therefore, the Rules in question can be repealed only by suitably amending the provisions of Sections 4 and 129 of the Code and providing express provisions repealing such Rules. 14. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Amending Act reads as under: "26. Repeal and savings.—(1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provisions are consistent with the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed." 15. It is evident from a reading of sub-section (1) of Section 16 supra that it repeals the amendment made or any provision inserted in the Code by a State Legislature or the High Court before the commencement of the Amending Act. Evidently, the rules framed by the High Court in exercise of the powers inter alia under Section 129 of the Code, is not an amendment made or any provision inserted in the Code, therefore, cannot be said to have been repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 16 (1) supra. There is nothing in the amending Act to suggest that the Legislature intended to repeal the rules framed by the High Courts to regulate their procedure in exercising their original civil jurisdiction. Had it been so, Sections 4 and 129 of the Code would have been suitably amended to make the intention manifest. 16. In M/s. Printpaak Machinery Ltd., New Delhi v. M/s. Jay Kay Paper Congeters, New Delhi, AIR 1979 Delhi 217, a Full Bench of Delhi High Court dealt with the question of effect of the provisions of Section 79 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment Act) 1976 (which are identical to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Amending Act) on the Original Side Rules, as applicable in the High Court of Delhi and the ambit and scope of the provisions of Section 129 of the Code as they then existed and are at present and held as under: "9. These propositions are old and well established. These propositions are old and well established. In Behram Jung v. Sultan AH, (1913) ILR 37 Bom 572, it was held that, in view of Section 129, a rule in the Code did not apply as it was inconsistent with a rule in the Bombay High Court Rules. Similarly, in Virpaksha Rao v. M. Ranganayaki Animal, AIR 1925 Mad 1132, it was said : Section 129 of the Code gives the High Court the power to make rules, regulating the procedure of the Original Side and nothing in the Code will affect such rules. The effect is that if the rules of the High Court, Original Side, and the Code are inconsistent, the rules prevail. Many cases from Calcutta hold the same: Umeshchandra Banerji v. Kunjilal Biswas, AIR 1930 Cal 685; Gowal Das v. Luchmi Chand, AIR 1930 Cal 324: In re: Ram Dayal De, AIR 1932 Cal 1; Shaw & Co. v. B. Shamaldas and Co., AIR 1954 Cal 369 and Manikchand Durgaprasad v. Pratabmull Rameswar, AIR 1961 Cal 483 (FB). And, so does the High Court of Allahabad: Mool Chand v. Kamta Prasad, AIR 1961 All 595. 14. ...Lastly, it was urged that Section 97(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 itself repealed the Original Side Rules. This submission is utterly misconceived. The sub-section says: 15. Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed. The original side Rules were not an amendment made or a provision inserted in the Code. They always existed as a separate body of rules. It is patent from Section 2(18) that they are beyond the purview of the Code. That sub-section defines rules to mean those rules and forms contained in the first Schedule or made under Section 122 or Section 125 Significantly, any reference to Section 129 is omitted. Thus, there is no question of the Original Side Rules being repealed. 16. Section 97 (1) of the amending Act was intended to disencumber the Code of accretions gathered over the years due to amendments made by State Legislatures and High Courts, except to the extent that they were consistent with the Code as amended by the Act. Thus, there is no question of the Original Side Rules being repealed. 16. Section 97 (1) of the amending Act was intended to disencumber the Code of accretions gathered over the years due to amendments made by State Legislatures and High Courts, except to the extent that they were consistent with the Code as amended by the Act. In other words, the purpose of the amending Act was to present a renovated Code as the new starting point, as had also been done in 1908. It was not the purpose to repeal all other and independent laws pertaining to procedure. Historically the original side of a High Court had always been treated on a special footing. As Section 129 shows, it has always been governed by its own rules in preference to those in the Code. The amending Act contains no indication that it was intended to depart from that position. Had there been any such intention, the obvious course was to amend Section 129. But it has remained fully intact. So has Section 4 of the Code and even Section 122. 17. Accordingly, I would hold that, in the event of inconsistency, the Original Side Rules prevail on the original side of this Court and not the Civil Procedure Code and, the amending Act of 1976 has made no difference in this respect." 17. In Pandit Narain Sinah v. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 Delhi 163, while dealing with the scope of Section 129 of the Code, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court held as under: "The effect of this provision is to enable High Courts with Original Jurisdiction to make Original Side Rules which vary or abridge the procedure prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code. It is not necessary to refer to many oases on this point, but reference may . be made to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Printpak Machinery Ltd., New Delhi v. Jay Kay Paper Congeters, New Delhi, AIR 1979 Delhi 217, wherein it was held that the High Court Rules will prevail over the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure because of Section 129 of the Code. Thus, on the Original Side the provision is contained in the Rules and is not contained in the Code." 18. Thus, on the Original Side the provision is contained in the Rules and is not contained in the Code." 18. In State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. M/s. Bhagwan Finance Corporation (Private) Limited, 1980 Shimla Law Cases 294, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the scope of Section 129 and Section 4(1) of the Code,(which remain unamended till date) held as under: "18. It is a non obstante clause. It over-rides all provisions of the Code limiting the powers of the High Court to make rules. The only limitation imposed on the powers of the High Court to make rules is that these should not be inconsistent with the law establishing the High Court. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the rules made by the High Court are a "special law" : The Union of India and another v. Ram Kanwar and others, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 247; Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lahore v. Official Liquidators, Punjab Cotton Press Company Ltd. (in Liquidation) and others, AIR 1941 Lahore 257 and Mungara Venkatermaniah and others v. Vudata Subbarrmayya, AIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh 245. These rules are also saved by Section 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. The relevant part of this section reads thus: "4.(1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or. power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force." 19. It may be repeated that the rules framed under Section 129 can be inconsistent with the body of the Code." 19. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that there being no amendment of Sections 4(1) and 129 of the Code, the provisions of Section 16 of the Amending Act, do not repeal the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Original Side) Rules, 1997 and, thus, these rules continue to be operative and in force. 20. Chapter X of the Rules supra provides the manner of recording evidence in civil suits by this High Court. The relevant rules are Rules 2 and 3, which read as under: "2. 20. Chapter X of the Rules supra provides the manner of recording evidence in civil suits by this High Court. The relevant rules are Rules 2 and 3, which read as under: "2. Evidence, how taken.—(a) Upto the hearing of any suit or matter, the evidence of each witness shall be taken down by or in the presence and under the superintendence of the Judge, ordinarily in the form of a narrative and such deposition will be signed by witness and by the Judge. (b) A party to a suit or matter in which deposition of a witness has been taken down in shorthand or typed to the dictation of the Judge shall be entitled to be furnished on payment of prescribed fee with a typed copy of the transcript, provided that ordinarily a written application has been made at the commencement of the hearing to be so furnished with a copy. 3. Any particular question and answer may be taken down.—The court may, of its own motion or at the request of any party or his Advocate, take down or cause to be taken down any particular question and answer, or any objection to any question." 21. It is clear on a bare reading of the aforesaid rules that in a suit pending in this Court, the evidence of each witness shall be taken down by or in the presence and under the superintendence of the Judge in the form of a narrative and such deposition will be signed by the witness and the Judge. However, the Court may in its own discretion or at the request of any party or his Advocate cause recording of any question and answer thereto or of any objection to any question and there is no provision for taking on record the evidence (examination in chief) of a witness by way of affidavit. 22. Rule 4(1) of Order XVIII of the Code as substituted by the Amending Act provides that in every case, the examination in chief of a witness in a civil suit shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls the deponent for evidence. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 provides the manner of recording cross examination and re-examination of the witness whose examination in chief has been brought on record by way of affidavit. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 provides the manner of recording cross examination and re-examination of the witness whose examination in chief has been brought on record by way of affidavit. Thus, the said amendment in the Rules evidently requires taking on record the examination in chief of a witness sought to be examined by a party to the suit in the form of an affidavit. Evidently, this rule is inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Rules providing for recording of evidence. However, in the event of such inconsistency, the procedural provisions as in the Rules being special law, shall prevail on the procedural rules as in the Code. 23. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the evidence in a civil suit is not required to be recorded by this Court in the manner as provided under Rule 4 of Order XVIII of the Code, but is to be recorded in the manner as provided under the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Original Side) Rules, 1997. Suit disposed of.