Judgment Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J. This revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order no. 50 dated 02/2/2007 passed by the ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghatal in Title Suit no. 53 of 2002. Case of the petitioner is that he filed Title Suit no. 53 of 2002 in the Court below against the defendants/opposite parties praying for declaration and permanent injunction. Said suit was filed on 21/5/2002. On 13th June, 2006 due to incorrect legal advice and being in dark about the present procedure of law, the petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 in chief on oath and his statement was recorded by the court in part. As the procedure in recording the evidence in chief of the plaintiff/petitioner was not in accordance with law as per the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002, so the petitioner filed an application praying for expunging the evidence so recorded and also to accept the evidence in chief of the petitioner which was given on affidavit. Said prayer was opposed by the opposite parties. Ld. Court below, by his impugned order, was pleased to reject the prayer for expunging the evidence, so recorded in chief. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this revisional application has been preferred. It is the admitted position that by the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002 it is incumbent upon the parties to submit evidence in chief by way of affidavit. But it appears that the evidence in chief of the plaintiff/petitioner was recorded on oath ignoring such provision. Now after the evidence in chief was recorded in part, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the petition praying for expunging the evidence, as was recorded earlier and to accept the evidence in chief which was done on affidavit. Ld. Court below rejected both the prayers. There is no doubt that as per the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure which came into force in the year 2002, the examination-in-chief of a plaintiff is to be recorded on affidavit. But instead of doing that the plaintiff was examined in chief on oath in the court. When such step was taken, the other side did not oppose. Be that as it may, a recording has been made on oath by a competent court of law. But instead of doing that the plaintiff was examined in chief on oath in the court. When such step was taken, the other side did not oppose. Be that as it may, a recording has been made on oath by a competent court of law. So the question of expunging of such recording of examination-in-chief does not arise at all, as such statement can always be used either for contradiction or corroboration in any proceeding. So the ld. Court below, in my opinion, was perfectly justified in refusing the prayer for expunging such statement of the P.W. 1. But at the same time, it appears that the ld. Court below did not accept the affidavit in chief as filed on behalf of the plaintiff. I have already pointed out that as per the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure it is obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to submit his examination-in-chief on affidavit. If that has been done, then the court had no reason not to accept the same. The order so passed by the ld. Court below appears to be palpably illegal and I have got no hesitation to hold that the ld. Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. Considering all these things, I am of opinion that this part of the order of the ld. court below should be set aside. In the result, the revisional application is disposed of.