SHRI. PRAKASHCHAND RUPCHAND JAINversusJAWAHARLAL NEHRU INSTITURE EDUCATION SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND ORS.

                                                                                   15-FA-1110-2015.doc


                                                                                                   rsk
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                FIRST APPEAL NO.1110 OF 2015

                          Shri. Prakashchand Rupchand
                          Jain                                   … Appellant
                                 Versus
                          Jawaharlal Nehru Institure
                          Education Science,
                          Technology Research And Ors.           ...Respondents
                                _____________________________________________________
                          Mrs. N. S. Baig for the Appellant.
                                _____________________________________________________

                                                           CORAM :      JITENDRA JAIN, J.
                                                           DATED :      17 JANUARY 2026

                          P. C.:


                          1.       Admit. Since the main suit from which is appeal is filed is sought

                          to be remanded back, though respondents have been served and they

                          are not present today, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposed of

                          finally.

                          2.         At the outset, learned advocate for the appellant states that

                          though she herself appeared before the Trial Court however against her
             Digitally
             signed by

RAJESHWARI
SUBODH
             RAJESHWARI
             SUBODH
             KARVE
                          name instead of “Smt” “Shri” was mentioned.
KARVE        Date:
             2026.01.17
             14:49:08
             +0530

                          3.       The original suit was for recovery of unpaid price of goods

                          supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants. There was no appearance on

                          behalf of the defendant before the trial Court.




                                                              1 of 3
                                                          15-FA-1110-2015.doc


4.     The learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that

an affidavit of examination-in-chief has not been properly drafted. As

per the learned Judge, the affidavit should have stated that the

documents furnished relates to the transaction which is the subject

matter of the Suit and it bears the signature of the witness or identifies

the signature etc.

5.     The learned advocate appearing for the appellant states that the

learned trial Judge ought to have granted an opportunity to cure the

defects in the examination-in-chief since this was one of her first trial

matter. The Trial Judge has recorded that the documents were filed

along with the examination-in-chief.

6.     In my view, learned Judge is justified in stating that even if suit is

undefended the rules of evidence to prove the documents cannot be

dispensed with. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the examination

in chief was filed along with all the relevant documents. But what was

lacking was proper drafting of examination-in-chief since the learned

advocate was naive to the trial proceedings in the beginning of her

career. In my view, the trial Judge ought to have granted one

opportunity to the plaintiff for filing a proper affidavit of examination-

in-chief.   It is settled   procedure that procedural defects should not

come in the way of getting justice.




                                    2 of 3
                                                       15-FA-1110-2015.doc


7.    In view of above, the impugned order dated 7 August 2015 is

quashed and set aside and the suit is remanded back to the learned trial

Judge for de novo hearing. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff to file

a proper affidavit of examination-in-chief within eight weeks from today

and appear before the learned Trial Judge on 23 February 2026 for

fixing further date of hearing.

8.     Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Consequently, Interim/Civil

Application does not survive.


                                               [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]




                                  3 of 3