Affidavit evidence cannot replace oral testimony in a disputed case unless the Code permits it and cross-examination is available.

A court cannot compel parties to prove a disputed case wholly by affidavit, because oral evidence remains the norm and affidavit evidence under Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to limited situations where procedural safeguards, including cross-examination, are available. The text also notes that findings based on affidavits contrary to the court record and judge's notes are unsustainable if accepted without proper testing. On that basis, the ex parte eviction order was set aside, the impugned order was quashed, and the eviction application was restored for disposal according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the trial court could compel the parties to prove the entire case by affidavits instead of recording evidence orally, and whether such affidavits could be treated as evidence in the circumstances of the case; (ii) whether the finding that the tenant was absent and the refusal to set aside the ex parte eviction order were sustainable on the material on record.

Issue (i): whether the trial court could compel the parties to prove the entire case by affidavits instead of recording evidence orally, and whether such affidavits could be treated as evidence in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Ordinarily, evidence is to be recorded viva voce in open court. The Code permits proof by affidavit only in limited situations: under Order 19 Rule 1, for particular facts and for sufficient reason, and under Order 19 Rule 2 on an application, subject to cross-examination if sought. The power under these provisions does not authorise a court to direct that the whole case of the parties be proved only by affidavits, especially where the facts are disputed and the opposite party has not consented to that course. Affidavit material may support a decision only where it is properly received under the Code and the procedural safeguards are satisfied.

Conclusion: The direction compelling affidavit-only proof was illegal and amounted to a misuse of the procedure under Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (ii): whether the finding that the tenant was absent and the refusal to set aside the ex parte eviction order were sustainable on the material on record.

Analysis: The affidavits and the court record supported the tenant's version that he was present or was represented and that the landlord was absent when the case was called. The contrary affidavits filed by the landlord were inconsistent with the judge's notes. The tenant's evidence was improperly disbelieved on untenable grounds, while the landlord's affidavits were accepted without cross-examination. On the materials available, the finding that the tenant was absent was manifestly unreasonable.

Conclusion: The finding against the tenant could not be sustained, and the ex parte eviction order was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned order was quashed, the ex parte eviction order was vacated, and the landlord's eviction application was restored for disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot compel the parties to prove a disputed case wholly by affidavits, and affidavit evidence can replace oral testimony only when the Code permits it and the procedural safeguards, including the possibility of cross-examination, are observed.

---