ORDER K. Bhakthavatsala, J. The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following relief: (i) to declare that the provision contained in Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by Act 22 of 2002 (Annexure-A1) is repugnant to the provisions contained under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) and the Oaths Act, 1969; and (ii) to quash the order dated 16.9.2005 made on I.A-IV filed in O.S. No. 176/1998 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Udupi, at Annexure-A. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the parties to the suit cannot be permitted to file affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and even if the provision contained in Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC is hled to be valid, it is applicable to witnesses and not to the parties to the suit. It is further contended that Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC is in direct conflict with Section 6(2) of the Oaths Act as well as the Indian Evidence Act. It is also contended that the Apex Court has not considered the above contentions while deciding the case viz., SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, TAMIL NADU Vs. UNION OF INDIA (ILR 2003 Kar 3315) and ILR 2005 Kar 4555, and therefore there is no impediment to entertain the Writ Petition. 3. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 176/1998 filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 herein for partition and separate possession of the plaint shcedule properties. After framing of the issues, the 2nd respondent herein viz., the 1st plaintiff filed affidavit dated 21.6.2005 in lieu of her examination-in-chief in the suit. The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC on 14.7.2005 seeking direction to the plaintiff to give her evidence by way of examination-in-chief before the Court rejecting the affidavit filed in lieu of her examination-in-chief . It was urged before the trial Court that Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC does not contemplate filing of affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief by the parties to the suit. The plaintiff in the suit opposed the application. The trial Court, after hearing arguments, by the impugned order at Annexure-A, rejected I.A.-IV. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing Annexure-A also. 4. The plaintiff in the suit opposed the application. The trial Court, after hearing arguments, by the impugned order at Annexure-A, rejected I.A.-IV. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing Annexure-A also. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and there is no conflict between Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC on the one side and the provisions of the Evidence Act and Oaths Act, on the other. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SALEM ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION’s case, supra, while considering the validity of Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC and other amendments made to Code of Civil Procedure by Act 22/2002 and held that the amended provisions are valid. It is pertinent to mention that in view of huge pendency of civil cases and in the interest of speedy disposal of cases, the Legislature thought it fit to amend the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore amended the same by Act 22 of 2002. The contentions of the learned cousnel for the petitioner that the parties to the suit shall give their evidence in examination-in-chief before the Court and they are not entitled to file affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief , holds no water. There is no conflict between Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC on one side and the provisions of the Oaths Act and the Evidence Act on the other. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to the case of the petitioner and there is no merit in the Petition. 6. In the result, the Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.