Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010049972025 2025:GAU-AS:2548 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/80/2025 BHUPEN CHANDRA DAS S/O LATE NIRANJAN DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALBARI, PO AND PS BHABANIPUR, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781035 VERSUS SARBESH ALI SO LATE SUKUR ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAHARA PATHAR, PO KURUBAHA, PS BARPETA, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM ASSAM 781352 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. P Khataniar, Senior Advocate Ms. N Rahman Advocate for the respondent(s): X X B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 10.03.2025 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. P Khataniar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. N Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 27.02.2025 whereby the learned Trial Court had expunged the evidence of PW-1 on the ground that when the PW-1 had appeared before the learned Trial Court to face the cross examination, he had specifically stated that he had not filed any examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit and he further stated that he did not know as to whether his lawyer had filed such an affidavit. 3. It is a trite principle of law that an examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit is not an evidence and the witness has to enter the witness box and state before the Court or the Commissioner duly authorized that the examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit is his or her. 4. In the instant case, as the plaintiff witness No.1 had failed to do so, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court of expunging the evidence of PW-1. 5. Before parting with the records, this Court further finds it relevant to take note of the submission of Mr. P Khataniar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the learned Trial Court did not enquire with the PW-1 as to whether the signature appearing in the examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit was the signature of the plaintiff witness No.1. This submission cannot be taken into account by this Court. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an application seeking review of the order dated 27.02.2025 and the learned Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made Page No.# 3/3 hereinabove. 6. With the above, the revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant