One of the most admirable features of the proposed amendments lies in the procedural efficiency. Replacing the traditional in-person oral testimony of plaintiffs and defendants with affidavit-based written statements, followed by cross-examination, is not merely a technical but a strategic shift. This model could drastically reduce courtroom hours, cut litigation delays, and relieve judges from prolonged hearings. For litigants who wait for years, even decades, this efficiency is a beacon of hope.

From a global perspective, this method is not unprecedented. Countries such as India, and several states of the United States have long employed affidavits in civil proceedings, particularly in pre-trial motions and evidentiary hearings. In India, the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act of 2002 also introduced affidavit-based evidence in place of oral testimony to expedite trials under Order XVIII Rule 4.  Studies from Indian trial courts revealed that affidavit-based witness submissions reduced the average trial length, especially in urban jurisdictions. Similarly, in the UK, written witness statements are standard practice in civil courts under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 1998). These reforms contributed to the UK civil courts clearing backlogs relatively faster within five years of implementation.

While the amendment replaces oral examination-in-chief with affidavits, it still retains in-person cross-examination in court. This means judges will have the opportunity to observe the parties' behaviour, demeanour, tone, and facial expressions— critical elements that often influence the outcome of trials. Thus, by striking a balance between the efficiency of written statements and the nuanced observations of human expressions, the amendment ensures that the complexities of human nature in a dispute are not reduced to mere paper submissions.

Similarly, the inclusion of digital tools such as online case resolution, summons via phone call, SMS or WhatsApp, and the removal of separate execution suits reflects a forward-looking approach. In countries such as Estonia, where over 95% of government and judicial services are digital, the average case disposal time is amongst the fastest in Europe. Digital communication not only saves time but democratises access to justice, especially for citizens in remote or underserved areas.

In conclusion, the amendment to the CPC represents a bold and timely stride toward resolving the chronic backlog that has long paralysed Bangladesh's civil justice system. If implemented with foresight, supported by digital infrastructure, and balanced with human sensitivity, this reform could become a landmark.

The writer is a law graduate from Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP).