( 1 ) THE petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased defendant in O. S. No. 2072/91 pending on the file of VIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. They have filed this writ petition praying to set aside the order dated 30-9-2002 passed by the trial court setting-down the case for the evidence of defendants after the plaintiff filed affidavit of evidence and closed his side. The said order is passed by the trial court in accordance with Rule 4 (1) of Order 18 C. P. C. after amendment of certain provisions of C. P. C. which have been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION. TAMIL NADU VS UNION OF INDIA reported in 2002 (6) ALD 34 (SC ). ( 2 ) DESPITE upholding of amended provisions of C. P. C. the impugned order is sought to be set aside placing strong reliance upon Rule 2 (2) of order 18 C. P. C and Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act contending that the procedure contemplated therein shall be scrupulously followed for taking evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed much emphasis on the word then occurring in sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 18 C. P. C to contend that only after the evidence of the plaintiff is closed, the defendant has to adduce evidence. According to him, before cross-examination of plaintiffs evidence, defendants cannot be called upon to produce their evidence. ( 3 ) IN order to consider the contentions urged, the relevant provisions of order 18 C. P. C are extracted only to the extent they are required: - 2. STATEMENT AND PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE: (1 ). On the day. . (2 ). The other party shall then state his case and produce his evidence (if any) and may then address the court generally on the whole case. (emphasis supplied) (3) (4) Recording of Evidence by Commissioner: (1) in every case, from a plain reading of the above provisions it is clear that under sub-rule (1), Rule 2 of Order 18 C. P. C the party having right to begin shall state his case and produce evidence. Thereafter, the other party shall state his case and produce his evidence as provided under sub-rule (2) thereof. That is what the trial court followed in the instant case. Thereafter, the other party shall state his case and produce his evidence as provided under sub-rule (2) thereof. That is what the trial court followed in the instant case. The plaintiff was allowed to state his case by way of affidavit as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of order 18 C. P. C. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, Cross-examination and re-examination will be taken on the basis of the evidence adduced by way of affidavit. In other words, what ever stated in affidavit evidence is subject to cross-examination by the other party. Thus, the right of cross-examination is not taken away. As long as that right is available to the other party, no harm or prejudice will be caused to either of the parties. ( 4 ) SECTION 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus: - 138. ORDER OF EXAMINATIONS:- the witness shall be first examined -in chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. As per the amended Rule 4 (1) of order 18 C. P. C, the examination-in-chief is obtained by from the plaintiff by way of affidavit and the defendants have the right of cross examination. The same is in accordance with Section 138 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the petitioners should not have any grievance against the impugned order of the trial court. More-over, the order impugned is in accordance with amended Rule 4 (1) of Order 18 C. P. C, the legality and validity of which has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. This Court cannot set aside the impugned order passed under the provision which has got the legality seal of the Apex Court. In the circumstances, the challenge made to the impugned order is not only unnecessary but wholly un warranted. ( 5 ) IT is to be noted that large number of cases are pending in various courts in this country. Such pendency is attributable not only to raising litigation but for want of proper infrastructure. The Judge strength is not based on population statistics. Our country is poor and its economic position is not stable for various reasons. Major portion of the revenue is being spent for the defence, tackling terrorism, relief to flood and drought victims, tackling very sensitive problems and various other unforeseen incidents, calamities etc. The Judge strength is not based on population statistics. Our country is poor and its economic position is not stable for various reasons. Major portion of the revenue is being spent for the defence, tackling terrorism, relief to flood and drought victims, tackling very sensitive problems and various other unforeseen incidents, calamities etc. , the country is unable to provide requisite infrastructure for the dispensation of justice. For want of population wise Judges, Courts and rising litigation, the pendency of cases in the Courts in our country is heavy. People are not getting speedy justice. Justice delayed is justice denied. ( 6 ) IN order to over-come the situation for providing speedy disposal of cases, to avoid the delay in the dispensation of justice and with a view to provide justice to the litigants at the earliest possible time, alternative procedure for speedy disposal of cases was thought fit and in that direction certain amendments have been brought to C. P. C. by amendment Acts. Litigants and legal fraternity should have whole- heartedly welcomed the amendments. However, there was opposite response. The result was, the amendments were tested before the Honble Supreme Court in the public interest litigation and they are held to be legal and valid. Following the amended provision, the trial court has passed the order impugned in this writ petition. Can such an order warrants interference by this court? Definitely not. Since the Supreme Court has approved the amended provisions of C. P. C, the order passed under one such amended provision does not warrant interference by this court. It follows that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed in limine. ( 7 ) THE decisions reported in A. I. R 1987 Orissa 209 (Jhumpa Bewa vs Sahadeb Rout) and A. I. R 1962 Punjab 183 (Mst. Deepo wife of Keha Singh vs Kehar Singh) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions, have not application to the facts of the case as those decisions had been rendered prior to the amendments to C. P. C. Since the Supreme Court has upheld the amended provisions of C. P. C, the same shall hold the filed and the procedure contemplated prior to such amendment shall be ignored. When the C. P. C was enacted originally, there was no much pendency of cases in the country. When the C. P. C was enacted originally, there was no much pendency of cases in the country. Taking into consideration the alarming rise in the litigation, lack of requisite infrastructure, disproportionate judge strength on population, basis delay in the appointment of judges to various Courts in the country, the amendments have been effected to C. P. C. Inspite of such noble object, nobody should insist to the old procedure for achieving nothing as long as the right to plead and prove the respective case of the parties, to cross examine the other side is available and also lead rebuttal evidence as provided under order 18 Rule (5) of C. P. C. If the Courts are forced to follow the old procedure, the very object and purpose for which the amendments have been effected by the parliament by liberalising the procedure for speedy disposal of cases to render justice to the public litigant with in reasonable time in the trial courts would be defeated. Hence, the reliance sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on sub-rule (2) of rules 2 and 5 of Order 18 C. P. C and the provisions of section 138 of Indian Evidence Act, deserves rejection. ( 8 ) THERE was no scope for the leaned counsel for the petitioners to place emphasis on the word then occurring in Rule 2 (2) of Order 18 C. P. C as only after taking the evidence of the plaintiff the defendants are directed to place their affidavit evidence. The collection of examination-in-chief from the plaintiff and defendants simulta- neously does not take away the right of either of the parties to cross-examine the other side nor it will cause any prejudice to any of the parties. The parties have to prove their respective case independently on the basis of issues framed as per the pleadings or demolish the case pleaded by the other side by effective cross examination. For want of time, recording of evidence cannot be done and the witnesses who came to Court for giving evidence will not turn-up on the next dates of hearing. The valuable and precious time of the Court and that of the litigants, advocates and witnesses can be saved by taking their evidence in the form of affidavits as provided under Order 18 rule 4 of CPC simultaneously. The valuable and precious time of the Court and that of the litigants, advocates and witnesses can be saved by taking their evidence in the form of affidavits as provided under Order 18 rule 4 of CPC simultaneously. What ever the witness want to say in the witness-box can be recorded in affidavit and the same is subjected to cross-examination by the opposite party. Petitioners counsel is unable to show the prejudice that would be caused to the petitioners if they are asked to adduce their evidence by filing their affidavits. Such an easy and simple procedure always helps speedy disposal of cases and the litigant get justice within a reasonable time. Keeping in view this laudable measure taken, one has to desist from questioning or challenging the orders passed under the amended provisions of C. P. C viewed from this angle also, the writ petition deserves dismissal. ( 9 ) THE trial Court has rightly held that nobody has vested right to claim a particular procedure. It also rightly held that the Court is neither curtailing the right of cross-examination nor it takes away the said right including adducing rebuttal evidence. The aim and object of amendment to certain provisions of C. P. C is providing simple procedure for speedy disposal of cases. Orders passed invoking such amended provisions merit little consideration. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. --- *** --- .