Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the trial Court, the petitioner/defendant submitted an affidavit in support of the written statement and when the case was fixed for evidence, the petitioner submitted another affidavit which is in the form of evidence by affidavit. Said affidavit was taken off the record by the trial Court vide order dt. 09.11.2006 on the ground that the petitioner’s earlier filed affidavit on 14.11.2005 will be read and subsequently filed affidavit will not be read. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order is without any reason. However, the petitioner had right to submit evidence in the form of affidavit after filing written statement which is required to be supported by affidavit. 3. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the order dt. 09.11.2006 has been passed without assigning any reason and further, the petitioner had right to file affidavit in evidence even when he has filed affidavit in support of the written statement. 4. Consequently, this writ petition deserves to be allowed, hence, allowed and the order dt. 09.11.2006 is set aside and the affidavit filed by the petitioner be treated as part of evidence and to be read in accordance with law only. * * * * *