Witness Cross-Examination Prevails Over Affidavit Evidence When the witness can be produced, the Tribunal must insist on oral examination.

The governing procedure barred acceptance of affidavit evidence where a party sought production of a witness for cross-examination and the witness was producible, so the Tribunal had to require oral examination and could not rely on the affidavit instead. The existence of an appellate remedy did not by itself exclude writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, particularly where the impugned orders reflected a grave procedural error and failed to give real reasons. The Tribunal's orders were therefore set aside, and the matter was directed to proceed in accordance with the rule requiring witness production and examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal could accept affidavit evidence of a witness when the defendant sought production of that witness for cross-examination under rule 12(6). (ii) Whether the writ petition was not maintainable because an appellate remedy was available under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal could accept affidavit evidence of a witness when the defendant sought production of that witness for cross-examination under rule 12(6).

Analysis: The proviso to rule 12(6) bars an order authorising proof by affidavit where the Tribunal finds that either party desires production of the witness for cross-examination and the witness can be produced. The Tribunal, being a creature of statute, was bound by that procedural limitation. The refusal to produce the witness and acceptance of affidavit evidence was inconsistent with the rule and with the principle that affidavits are not evidence unless permitted by law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal could not lawfully accept the affidavit evidence once cross-examination was sought and the witness was producible; the petitioners succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was not maintainable because an appellate remedy was available under the Act.

Analysis: The existence of an appeal does not automatically exclude jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Where the Tribunal passes a grave procedural error or a mechanically reasoned order, the writ court may intervene. The impugned orders were treated as unsustainable because they failed to apply the governing rule and gave no real reasons, so the alternative remedy objection could not prevail.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the appellate remedy, and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's orders were set aside and the matter was directed to proceed in accordance with the rule governing witness examination, with the bank's affidavit evidence rejected and the witness required to be produced for examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing procedure expressly prohibits affidavit evidence once cross-examination of a producible witness is sought, the Tribunal must insist on oral examination, and the availability of an appeal does not bar writ relief against a grave procedural error or a mechanically reasoned order.

---