on the agreed issues that arose for determination on the basis of the pleadings. Thereafter even if one were to consider the submission of the parties to be relatable to order XIII-A CPC, it was necessary to insist on a written application thereunder and thereafter, to contemporaneously record on oath the statements of the authorised representatives of the parties that they were agreeable to dispensing with the leading of evidence and for the suit to proceed to final arguments on the basis of the affidavits on record. This Court would insist on the 'contemporaneous' or 'immediate' recording of such statements to obviate a plea later on by any of the parties that no such statement was made or that counsel appearing on their behalf was not authorised to make such statements. In a situation like the present one, where the parties were not presenting to the Court a 'settlement' under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, but were still in the adversarial mode wanting a finding on the issues, the Court has to ensure that the parties understand the implications of agreeing to dispense with the leading of evidence. In other words, the Court has to be satisfied that the parties have voluntarily given up the right to not only cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits against them but to also give up the right to lead evidence in their respective defence.
