Judgment This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.09.2003 p3ssed by Additional District Judge/IV F.T.C., Dehradun by which the application of the applicant/defendant was rejected ignoring the examination-in-chief by way of affidavit, copy of which was supplied to the defendant. 2. Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Vashishtha, learned counsel for the caveator. 3. The trial court has rejected the application on the ground that examination-in-chief was filed in accordance with Rule-4 of Order-18 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has overriding effect over Rule-5 of Order-18 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it was argued before the trial court that since remedy of appeal was avi1able, therefore, in view of Rule-5 of Order-18 C.P.C., oral statement of the witnesses is to be recorded. 4. Question of construction of Rule-4 and Rule-5 of Order-18 of C.P.C. directly arise in this writ petition, therefore, both the Rules are quoted below:- "4. Recording of evidence.- (1) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence. Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed alongwith affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court. (2) The evidence (cross-examination and re-examination) of the witness in attendance, whose evidence (examination-in-chief) by affidavit has been furnished to the Court shall be taken either by the Court or by the Commissioner appointed by it : Provided that the Court may, while appointing a commission under this Sub-rule, consider taking into account such relevant factors as it thinks fit. (3) The court or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall record evidence either in writing or mechanically in the presence of the Judge or of the Commissioner, as the case may be, and where such evidence is recorded by the Commissioner, he shall return such evidence together with his report in writing signed by him to the Court appointing him and the evidence taken under it shall form part of the record of the suit. (4) The Commissioner may record such remarks as it thinks material respecting the demeanour of any witness while under examination: Provided that any objection raised during the recording of evidence before the Commissioner shall be recorded by him and decided by the Court at the state of arguments. (5) The report of the Commissioner shall be submitted to the Court appointing the commission within sixty days from the date of issue of the commission unless the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing extends the time. (6) The High Court or the District Judge, as the case may be, shall prepare a panel of Commissioners to record the evidence under this rule. (7) The Court may by general or special order fix the amount to be paid as remuneration for the services of the Commissioner. (8) The provisions of Rules 16A, 17 and 18 of Order XXVI, in so far as they are applicable, shall apply to the issue, execution and return of such commission under this rule. 5. How evidence shall be taken in appealable cases: - In cases in which an appeal is allowed, the evidence of each witness shall be- (a) taken down in the language of the Court- (i) in writing by, or in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of, the judge, or (ii) from the dictation of the Judge directly on a typewriter; or (b) if the Judge, for reasons to be recorded, so directs recorded mechanically in the language of the Court in the presence of the Judge." 5. Rule-4 of Order-18 C.P.C. was inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2002 by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002 vide Section 12(b) in place of old Rule-4 wherein the provision for oral statement of witnesses in the court was provided. Rule-5 has not been amended. 6. It is well settled that a provision should be constituted to give effect to its object. Rule-4 of Order-18 C.P.C. has been inserted with a public policy in that the trial should not be delayed on account of lengthy process of oral examination of witnesses. Therefore, Rule-4 of Order-18 C.P.C. should be constituted as it is on Statute-book. By inserting Sub Rule-2 in Rule-4, Legislature has taken full precaution that whether the oral statement is required in a trial after the filing of affidavit by the parties, the same may be ordered by the Court. Therefore, Rule-4 of Order-18 C.P.C. should be constituted as it is on Statute-book. By inserting Sub Rule-2 in Rule-4, Legislature has taken full precaution that whether the oral statement is required in a trial after the filing of affidavit by the parties, the same may be ordered by the Court. Therefore, examination of a witness for oral examination is not completely excluded. 7. Perusal of Rule-S makes it clear that the procedure prescribed in Rule-5 is to be allowed when the oral statement is to be recorded. If the oral statement is to be recorded, now in view of the amended provision of Rule-S, the oral statement is to be recorded only when the application is allowed under Sub Rule-2 of Rule-4 and witness is called for oral statement then procedure prescribed under Rule-S will come into play. Otherwise if there is no application under Sub Rule-2 of Rule-4 for summoning the witness for oral statement, Rules will not be attracted in the trial. After the amendment of Rule-4 containing the provision under Sub Rule-2 of Rule-4, Rule-5 is supplemental to Sub Rule-2 of Rule-4. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in A.I.R. 2003, page 2074 Laxman Das Vs. Dev Jiwan. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that in all cases where appeal is provided, Rule-5 will come into play and oral statement should be recorded. The view taken by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, with great respect, is not in conformity with the object for which Rule-4 of Order-18 C.P.C. has been amended, therefore, I am not in agreement with the view taken by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. 9. I am fortified with the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India reported in A.I.R. 2003 Supreme Court 189. 10. I have perused the application moved by the petitioner before the trial court contained in annexure-2 to the writ petition. The prayer of which is quoted as under: " It is, therefore, prayed that the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs by way of examination in chief be struck of and the plaintiffs' evidence be closed." 11. This prayer cannot be allowed under Sub Rule-2 of Rule-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. The prayer of which is quoted as under: " It is, therefore, prayed that the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs by way of examination in chief be struck of and the plaintiffs' evidence be closed." 11. This prayer cannot be allowed under Sub Rule-2 of Rule-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. The application was rightly rejected though for the incorrect reasons. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and is hereby rejected. However, dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioner to move application under Sub Rule-2 of Rule-4 of Order-18 of the Code of Civil Procedure.