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