Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Affidavit — Validity — An interlocutory application supported by an affidavit not signed by the deponent, but by a third party, is legally defective and cannot be entertained; any order passed on the strength of such affidavit is liable to be set aside. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Evidence — Reopening of evidence — Application to reopen evidence to examine a material witness cannot be allowed when the supporting affidavit is not sworn by the party seeking relief.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Affidavit — Validity —
An interlocutory application supported by an affidavit not signed by the deponent, but by a third party, is legally defective and cannot be entertained; any order passed on the strength of such affidavit is liable to be set aside.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Evidence — Reopening of evidence —
Application to reopen evidence to examine a material witness cannot be allowed when the supporting affidavit is not sworn by the party seeking relief.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Interlocutory applications — Procedural compliance —
Failure to verify pleadings through a properly sworn affidavit goes to the root of the matter; such defect cannot be cured by merits of the claim.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Promissory note — Proof of execution —
Burden of proving execution of a promissory note and passing of consideration lies squarely on the plaintiff, who is required to adduce evidence of attestors and scribe in accordance with law.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Reopening of evidence — Liberty —
Where an order permitting reopening of evidence is set aside on a technical ground and not on merits, the plaintiff may be granted liberty to file a fresh application, to be considered independently on its own merits.

Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction —
Interference is warranted where the trial Court exercises jurisdiction on the basis of a procedurally invalid affidavit, resulting in material irregularity.

---

CASE FACTS

• The plaintiff filed O.S.No.32 of 2020 before the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, seeking recovery of Rs.51,48,000/- based on a promissory note dated 30.09.2017.

• After completion of evidence on both sides, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.204 of 2025 seeking reopening of evidence to examine the scribe of Ex.A1-promissory note as P.W.3.

• The trial Court allowed the application by order dated 21.04.2025, granting permission to reopen evidence.

• The defendant challenged the said order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

ANALYSIS

• The High Court noticed that the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.204 of 2025 was not signed by the plaintiff, who was shown as deponent, but was signed by P.W.2, one of the attestors to the promissory note.

• Such defect ought to have been noticed at the stage of numbering itself, and the trial Court committed material irregularity in entertaining the application despite a specific objection raised in the counter.

• The Court held that no relief can be granted on the basis of an affidavit sworn by a third party, irrespective of the merits of the claim.

• However, since the impugned order was not set aside on merits, and considering that the scribe of the promissory note is a crucial witness, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh application duly supported by a proper affidavit.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. An interlocutory application unsupported by a valid affidavit sworn by the deponent is not maintainable in law.

2. Orders passed on the strength of such defective affidavits suffer from material irregularity and warrant interference under Article 227.

3. Setting aside such an order on technical grounds does not preclude the plaintiff from seeking the same relief afresh through proper procedure.

---

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judge: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Date of Judgment: 08.01.2026