ORDER: These civil revision petitions have been filed against the fair and decretal orders of even dated 16.10.2003, passed in O.S.Nos.6701, 6702, 6923, 6924 and 7294 of 1996, on the file of the 8th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. All the revision petitioners are the defendants in their respective suits. The respondents/plaintiffs, during the course of the trial, filed affidavits for their chief-examination and copies of the same were served to the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners and the same was received by him subject to objection on its admissibility in view of the provisions of O.18, Rule 5, C.P.C., contending proof affidavits are not permissible and parties have got to be examined in chief-examination in appealable cases. The trial Court did not agree with the objections of the revision petitioners and rejected their contention and accepted the proof affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for their chief-examination. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred these civil revision petitions. 3. As common facts and questions of law arise, in all the civil revision petitions, by consent of both the parties, all of them have been taken together, heard and disposed of by this common order. Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners and the respondents. 4. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners would contend that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is one for the declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of possession and for damages and any decree and judgment that would be passed in the suit is subject to an appeal and therefore, it would fall under the category of "appealable cases", as provided under O.18, Rule 5, C.P.C., in which the evidence has got to be recorded in the presence and personal direction of the judge and hence, proof affidavit in appealable cases is not permissible. O.18, Rule 5, C.P.C., reads as under: "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 reason to be recorded, so directs, recorded mechanically in the language of the Court in the presence of the Judge." There is no dispute that the decree and judgment that would be passed in this case is an appealable one. It is therefore, contended that the chief-examination of the plaintiff cannot be done by filing affidavit and the course adopted by the plaintiff and accepted by the Court below are not proper and they are vitiated and not sustainable. 5. The objections raised by the revision petitioners are three fold, which they call as the evils of recording chief-examination by, filing affidavit, viz: (1) The decree/judgment that would be passed in this suit is subject to an appeal and therefore, it would fall under the category of appealable cases and hence, recording of chief-examination of a witness by filing affidavit its not permissible. (2) If chief-examination is done through filing an affidavit, there is every chance of filing up with all leadings questions and the same is not permissible. (3) If the documents, irrespective of their admissibility or otherwise, would, indiscriminately be filed, and marked, the various provisions in the Evidence Act, Stamp Act, Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act will be transgressed and the relevant provisions would be a mockery. 6. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners would contend that chief-examination is defined under Sec.137 of the Evidence Act and if a party files an affidavit of chief-examination, there is every possibility of inserting ‘leading questions’ and the same is not permissible under law. 6. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners would contend that chief-examination is defined under Sec.137 of the Evidence Act and if a party files an affidavit of chief-examination, there is every possibility of inserting ‘leading questions’ and the same is not permissible under law. ‘Leading question’ is defined under Sec.141 of the Evidence Act, which states, "Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question." It is suggested that the affidavit is prepared not b the party, but, it is prepared on behalf of the party by his/her advocate and there is every chance of inserting all leading questions in the chief-examination, and therefore, it is not permissible, at least by the cases,in which an appeal is permissible. 7. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners would further contend that O.18, Rule 4, C.P.C., provides for "recording of evidence, which states: (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 along with 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 demeanor of any witness while under examination. (4) The Commissioner may record such remarks as it thinks material respecting the demeanor 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 stage of arguments. (5) The report of the Commissioner shall be submitted to the Court appointing the commission with 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 as panel of Commissioners to record the evidence under this rule. (7) The Court may be general or special order fix the amount to be paid as remuneration for the services of the Commissioner. (8) The provisions of Rules 16, 16-A, 17 and 18 of O.26 in so far as they are applicable, shall apply to the issue, execution and return of such commissions under this rule.“ Mr.P.Rathinadurai, the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners contended that this rule is only a general in nature and the words ‘in every case’ occur in Rule 4 of O.18, C.P.C., is subject O.18, Rule 5, which is ‘special’ in nature and it is settled law that a Special Act or Rule would exclude the general Act/Rule and therefore, O.18 Rule 4 is subject to O.18, Rule 5, C.P.C., which the Court below failed to appreciate and came to the wrong conclusion, that the affidavit of chief-examination is permissible. 8. It is further argued that the lower Court failed to take note of the fact that the provisions under Rules 4, 5, 12 and 13 of O.18, C.P.C., and they have got to be read, harmoniously and if it is done so, it would be made out that filing of proof affidavit of chief-examination is not permissible. 9. 8. It is further argued that the lower Court failed to take note of the fact that the provisions under Rules 4, 5, 12 and 13 of O.18, C.P.C., and they have got to be read, harmoniously and if it is done so, it would be made out that filing of proof affidavit of chief-examination is not permissible. 9. Revision petitioners’ further contention is that documents are marked in the proof affidavit, in the absence of the other side, without any objection and all the documents, which are admissible or inadmissible, relevant or irrelevant and whether they are all duly stamped or not, are all admitted and when once, the documents are admitted, they cannot be questioned and therefore, the very sanctity of the admissibility of the documents also goes and the relevant provisions under the several enactments are breached and therefore, the practice of entertaining affidavit for chief-examination is not proper or at least, it is not permissible in appealable cases. 1O. The revision petitioners relied upon the case of Laxman Das v. Deoji Mal and others, A.I.R. 2003 Raj. 74, wherein, the learned single Judge has held,” O.18, Rule 4 of Amended Act provides for recording of examination-in-chief by affidavit in every case, but Rule 5 thereof remains unchanged which provides for recording of evidence by the Court in the case the ultimate judgment and decree to be passed by the Court is appealable. To provide the harmonious construction of these provisions O.18, Rule 4 is to be read with O.18, Rule 13 but as there is no chance in O.18, Rule 5 it cannot be said that even in cases where the ultimate order shall be appealable the evidence can be recorded as provided either under O.18, Rule 4 or O.18, Rule 13. Giving any other interpretation would render Rule 5 thereof, nugatory and such an interpretation is not permissible. Therefore, in view of the above, the words ‘in every case’, contained in Rule 4 of O.18 have to be understood in a limited sense that every case wherein in the ultimate order is not appealable and by no means it can take in its ambit the orders which would be appealable. Therefore, in view of the above, the words ‘in every case’, contained in Rule 4 of O.18 have to be understood in a limited sense that every case wherein in the ultimate order is not appealable and by no means it can take in its ambit the orders which would be appealable. “ Thereby, contended that Rule 4 of O.18 is subject to Rule 5 of O.18 and in all the appealable cases, O.18, Rule 5 would prevail and by which, recording of examination-in-chief by affidavit is not proper and correct. 11. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners also emphasised that the Courts are not concerned with the policy of the Legislature or with the result of giving effect to the language of the statute, but it is their duty to ascertain the meaning and intendment of the Legislature and to substantiate the same, relied upon the case of Firm Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1548, wherein, it was observed,” 4....We were reminded with a somewhat emphatic assertion what appears to us to be unexceptional that the Courts are not concerned with the policy of the legislature or with the result, whether injurious or otherwise, by giving effect to the language used nor is it the function of the Court where the meaning is clear not to give effect to it merely because it would lead to hardship. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that one of the duties imposed on the Courts in interpreting a particular provision of law, rule or notification is to ascertain the meaning and intendment of the legislature or of the delegate, which in exercise of the powers conferred on it, has made the rule or notification that O.18, Rule 4 is subject to O.18, Rule 5 and the same is not properly considered b the Court below. 12. The revision petitioners further contended that at the time when the document is sought to be marked, if objection is raised, the Court should not mark the said document tentatively and reserve the question of the admissibility for arguments at the final stage. This is the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nori Srirama Sastri v. Nori Lakshmidevamma and others, A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 60. But, now it is being done and the same is contrary to law. 13. This is the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nori Srirama Sastri v. Nori Lakshmidevamma and others, A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 60. But, now it is being done and the same is contrary to law. 13. It is further argued that when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous, the intention of the legislature cannot be enlarged. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Private Limited and others, (2002)9 Scale 102 , it was held, “In other words statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute.” 14. In E.Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (Dead) by L.Rs. and others, (2003)1 S.C.C. 122 , it was observed: “....The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such matters. The Court’s jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known that in a given case the Court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot rewrit or recast legislation.” Pointing out these decisions, it is argued that the Court interpret that the words, “in every case” employed in O.18, Rule 4, C.P.C., would override O.18, Rule 5, wherein it is stated that in cases in which an appeal is allowed, the evidence of each witness shall be taken down in the language of the Court, and O.18, Rule 4 cannot have overriding effect over O.18, Rule 5 and therefore, the procedure followed by the plaintiff and approved by the Court below is not correct. 15.Per contra, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff would contend that the Amended Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002) of C.P.C., which was enacted by the parliament with a view to cut short the delay of the trial at various levels. 15.Per contra, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff would contend that the Amended Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002) of C.P.C., which was enacted by the parliament with a view to cut short the delay of the trial at various levels. One of the measures undertaken by the amended Act is amendment of Rule 4 of O.18, which we have already seen. As per Rule 4 of O.18, examination-in-chief of a witness shall be an affidavit, only to reduce the time taken for recording of the evidence. Of course, there is a possibility of inserting leading questions apart from the fact that marking of documents, relevant or irrelevant, admissible or inadmissible and also whether they are duly stamped or not. But necessary safeguards have been made in Rule 4(1) of O.18 itself, which states, “Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents are filed along with the affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court.” The admissibility or inadmissibility, relevant or irrelevant of the documents was given to the orders of the Court. These are all the measures to save time of the Court and it is settled law that mere making of documents would not amount to proof that the document is admissible or relevant, but, the same is subject to the scrutiny of the Court in all aspects. 16. It may be stated that if the evidence of the witness is recorded in open Court, the Court shall have an opportunity of observing the demeanor of the witness and the said opportunity may appears to have been taken away by filing affidavit. It is not so, as Rule 4(4) of O.18 states, “The Commissioner may record such remarks as it thinks material respecting the demeanor 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 stage of arguments.” O.18 Rule 4 has been amended only to save the time of the Court and all possible evils that would arise out of recording of chief-examination by affidavit would definitely be taken in note of by the Court as the examination-in-chief and the documents are all subject to the order of the Court. 17. 17. It is also submitted that O.18 Rule 4 is subject to O.18 Rule 5 and both the rules have got to be read harmoniously and conjointly and not disjointly. The very essence of the amended Act of 22 of 2002 is to reduce the Court hour in recording the evidence and if the evidence of a witness is once again to be recorded by the Court, the very purpose of the amendment itself would get defeated and frustrated and Rule 4 of O.18 would not carry any meaning at all. The words used in O.18 Rule 4 i.e., ‘in every case’ would comprehend the case, in which an appeal is allowed and therefore, the argument advanced otherwise by the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner is untenable. 18. In the case of Subbammal v. Paramasivam Asari, (2003)3 L.W. 679 , this Court, (P.Shanmugam, J.) has considered the provisions of O.18, Rule 4 and Rule 5 and in that case also almost the very same argument has been advanced as done in this case by the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner in that case that O.18, Rule 5 is not subject to Rule 4, and in the said context, the learned judge relied upon the decisions rendered in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2002)4 L.W. 512: (2003)1 S.C.C. 49 , wherein it was held, “when summons are issued, the Court can give an option to the witness summoned either to file an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief or to be present in Court for his examination”. In appropriate cases, the Court can direct the summoned witness to file an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In other words, with regard to the summoned witnesses the principle incorporated in O.17, Rule 4, C.P.C., can be waived. Whether the witness shall be directed to file an affidavit or to be required to be present in Court for recording of his evidence is a matter to be decided by the Court in its discretion having regard to the facts of each case." The Supreme Court had given this option only in a case where witnesses were summoned, but not in respect of the parties, to the suit or proceedings, were examined. The learned Judge of this Court has also observed, "15. The learned Judge of this Court has also observed, "15. It is an accepted principle of interpretation that when there is a general enactment as well as special enactment in respect of the same head in a statute, the particular enactment over rides the general enactment. The contention of the party that amended provision is a general enactment and that O.18, Rule 5, C.P.C., is a special enactment cannot be the correct way of understanding. The question of general versus special generally arises in the case of interpretation of two statutory provisions. Here, it is a case of provisions of the same status placed side by side and both the provisions can function in their own parallel channels. If the words of the provisions are clear, they must be followed and more so, they must be given effect to the intendment of the enactment." By observing so, the learned judge has put an end to the controversy by holding, that in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2002)4 L.W. 512: (2003)1 S.C.C. 49 , the question raised is no longer res integra, as the apex Court laid down the law upholding the provisions of O.18, Rule 4, C.P.C., giving discretion to the Court. 19. Recently, the Supreme Court had once again had an occasion to examine the provisions of O.18 Rule 4 and O.18, Rules 5 and 13 of C.P.C., with regard to the recording of evidence and examination-in-chief of a witness. (as mentioned w.e.f., 1.1.2002) in the case of A.T. Coporation Limited v. Shapoorji Data Processing Limited, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 355. In that case, the Supreme Court overruled the decision rendered in Laxman Das v. Deoji Mal, A.I.R. 2003 Raj. 74. In that case, the Supreme Court shad observed, "13. The other sub rules of Rule 4 of O.18 provide for other and further procedures as regard examination of witness. 14. In that case, the Supreme Court overruled the decision rendered in Laxman Das v. Deoji Mal, A.I.R. 2003 Raj. 74. In that case, the Supreme Court shad observed, "13. The other sub rules of Rule 4 of O.18 provide for other and further procedures as regard examination of witness. 14. Rule 5 refers to the evidence which is required to be taken in cases where the appeal is allowed in contradiction with the cases where appeal is not allowed as envisaged in Rule 13 of O.18 of C.P.C. Rule 5, therefore, envisages a situation where the Court is required to take down an evidence in the manner laid down therein which would mean that where cross-examination or re-examination of the witness is to take place in the Court. 15. The examination of a witness would include evidence in chief, cross-examination or re-examination Rule 4 of O.18 speaks of examination-in-chief. The amended rules provided for the manner in which ‘evidence’ is to be taken. Such examination-in-chief of a witness in every case shall be on affidavit." The Supreme Court further had observed, "Whereas under the unamended rule, the entire evidence was required to be adduced in Court, now the examination-in-chief of a witness including the party to a suit is to be tendered on affidavit. The expressions "in every case’ are significant. What, thus, remains viz., cross-examination 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 Rule 5 of O.18 speaks of the other formalities which are required to be complied with. In the cases, however, where an appeal is not allowed, the procedures laid own in Rule 5 are not required to be followed. In a situation of this nature, the doctrine of suppression of mischief rule as adumbrated in Heydon’s case, 3 Lo. Rep. 7a, 76 ER 637 shall apply. In the cases, however, where an appeal is not allowed, the procedures laid own in Rule 5 are not required to be followed. In a situation of this nature, the doctrine of suppression of mischief rule as adumbrated in Heydon’s case, 3 Lo. Rep. 7a, 76 ER 637 shall apply. The doctrine originates in Heydon’s case where the Barons of the Exchequer resolved that for the sure and true interpretation of all statues in general, four things are to be discerned and considered: (1) What was the common law before the making of the Act, (2) What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide, (3) What remedy Parliament has resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth; and (4) the true reason of the remedy and then the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall; (a) suppress the mischief and advance the remedy; and (b) suppress subtle inventions and evasions for the continuance of the mischief pro privateo commodo (for private benefit) and (c) add force and life to the cure and remedy according to the true intent of the makers of the Act pro publico (for the public good)." It was further observed, "Heydon’s Rule has been considered and accepted by the Supreme Court in the cases of Pek Kallianai Amma and others v. K.Devi and others, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1963,Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar and others, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 661 and Goodyear India Limited v. State of Haryana and another, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 781. "It is further added that, "It is now well-settled that for the purpose of interpretation of statute the same has to be in its entirety." The Supreme Court further accepted the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of FDC Limited v. Federation of Medical Representatives Association India, A.I.R. 2003 Bom. 371 in paragraphs 7 and 8, which reads as, "The harmonious reading of Rule 4 and 5 of O.18 would reveal that while in each and every case of recording of evidence, the examination-in-chief is to be permitted in the form of affidavit and while such evidence in the form of affidavit being taken on record, the procedure described under Rule 5 is to be followed in the appealable cases. In non appealable cases, the affidavit can be taken on record by taking resort to the provisions of law contained in Rule 13 of O.18. In other words, mere production of the affidavit by the witness will empower the Court to take such affidavit on record as forming part of the evidence by recording the memorandum in respect of production of such affidavit taking resort to Rule 13 of O.18 in all cases except in the appealable cases wherein it will be necessary for the Court to record evidence of production of the affidavit in respect of examination-in-chief by asking the deponent to produce such affidavit in accordance with Rule 5 of O.18. Undoubtedly, in both the cases, for the purpose of cross-examination, the Court has to follow the procedure prescribed under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 read with Rule 13 in case of non appealable cases and the procedure prescribed under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 read with Rule 5 in appealable cases. In other words, in the appealable cases though the examination-in-chief of a witness is permissible to be produced in the form of affidavit, such affidavit cannot be ordered to form part of the evidence unless the deponent thereof enters the witness box and confirms that the contents of the affidavit are as per his say and the affidavit is under his signature and this statement being made on oath to be recorded by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 [Italics supplied]. In non-appealable cases, however, the affidavit in relation to examination-in-chief of a witness can be taken on record as forming part of the evidence by recording memorandum of production of such affidavit by taking resort to Rule 13 of O.18. The cross-examination of such deponent in case of appealable cases, will have to be recorded by complying the provisions of Rule 5, where as in case of non-appealable cases the Court would be empowered to exercise its power under Rule 13." 20. In view of the above said ruling of the Supreme Court in A.T. Coporation Limited v. Shapoorji Data Processing Limited, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 355. I am unable to agree with the arguments danced on behalf of the revision petitioners as the matter is no longer res integra. 21. In the result, civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed. 22. I am unable to agree with the arguments danced on behalf of the revision petitioners as the matter is no longer res integra. 21. In the result, civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed. 22. Before parting with the case, I wish to appreciate and place on record the views expressed by Mr.P.Rathinadurisa, the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners, that if the witness is not examined in open Court, at least in appealable cases, the very basic structure of the Evidence Act and other enactments would collapse and the legislature, law makers should immediately look into the fact that atleast to amend Rule 4 of O.18 to the effect that after ‘in every case’, “except in cases in which an appeal is allowed”, that would resolve the mis-reading of O.18, Rule 4 and O.18, Rule 5 and also put to an end to any further controversy also in this matter.