http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SMT. SAVITHRAMMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CECIL NARONHA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/08/1988

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1987            1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 561  1988 SCC  Supl.  655     JT 1988 (3)   432  1988 SCALE  (2)406

ACT:     Supreme   Court Rules,  1966: Order XI, Rules 5 and  13- Affidavit  Mode of placing evidence-Defective affidavit  has no  probative  value-Strict  compliance  with   rules-Proper verification- Especially where allegations of mala fides  or disobedience of Court’s order made- Necessity for.

HEADNOTE:     The  complainant  filed  in this Court  a  petition  for contempt  against  the accused for their failure  to  comply with  the  orders  of this  Court. In  paragraph  2  of  the affidavit  in  support  of the  petition,  the   complainant stated  that the statements contained in the  petition  were true  to the best of her knowledge, belief and  information. In  paragraph  3 she further stated that the  affidavit  had been  read  over, translated and explained to  her  and  she understood the contents thereof; and that the same were true to her knowledge and belief.     Similarly,  in the affidavit on behalf of  the  accused, which has been filed by a clerk of the Advocate,the deponent verified the affidavit by stating that the statements of the accused  were  true  and correct which  were  based  on  the records   maintained  in  the  Advocate’s  office   and   on instructions received from the clients.     Rejecting  the  affidavits? as not being  in  accordance with  the Supreme Court Rules or Order 19? Rule of the  Code of Civil Procedure. this Court,     HELD: 1.1 Affidavit is a mode of placing evidence before the  Court.  A party may prove a fact or facts by  means  of affidavit before this Court but such affidavit should be  ia accordance with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules. [564A]     1.2  The  party stating facts must disclose as  to  what facts  are  true to his personal knowledge,  information  or belief. If the statement of fact is based on information the source of information must be disclosed in the affidavit. An affidavit which does not comply with the provisions of Order                                                   PG NO 561                                                   PG NO 562 XI of the Supreme Court Rules, has no probative value and it is liable to be rejected. [564D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

   1.3  In  a  matter where allegations of  mala  fides  or disobedience of the Court’s order are made against a  person or party, it is an the more necessary that the person Filing affidavit in this regard must take care to verify the  facts stated  in  the affidavit strictly in  accordance  with  the Rules 5 and 13. [564E]     1.4 Of late affidavits are being Filed in this Court  in a  slipshod manner without having any regard to  the  Rules. Affidavits  are  being filed by persons who  could  have  no personal knowledge about the facts stated in the  affidavit. Deponents  of Affidavits pay no attention  to  verification. [564F]     State-of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik, [1952] SCR 674, referred to     1.5   The  practice  of  clerks  of   advocates   filing affidavits  without a proper verification is deprecated.  As matters before the apex court are determined on the basis of the statements contained in affidavits it is the duty of the litigants  and the lawyers to file affidavits in  accordance with the rules to assist the Court in administering justice. [565E-F]     In  the  instant  case,  the  affidavit  filed  by   the complainant  is  clearly vague, general and  defective,  and does  not  indicate  as  to what  facts  were  true  to  her knowledge,  information and belief. It does not comply  with the  requirement  of a valid affidavit as laid down  in  the Rules  5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules.  Similarly,  the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the accused by  office clerk of the Advocate is wholly improper and inadmissible in evidence and liable to be rejected. [563E-F, 565D]     Since both the affidavits do not comply with the  Rules, no  reliance  can be placed on them.  They  are  accordingly rejected. Consequently, the contempt petition is also liable to  be  rejected,  but parties are given a  chance  to  file proper affidavits. [565G]

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION:  Contempt Petition No. 31997 of 1987.                              IN     Civil Appeal No. 2277 of 1986.                                                   PG NO 563     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 30.3.  1983  of  the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 2585 of 1975.     Padmanabha Mahale for the Complainant.     M. Veerappa for the Accused.     The Order of the Court was delivered by     SINGH, J. The complainant has by means of this  petition claimed  relief for taking action for contempt  against  the accused for their failure to comply with the orders of  this Court dated 14.7. 1986 made in Civil Appeal No. 2277 of 1986 and  to  punish the accused who include  the  Secretary  and Commissioner,  Government of Karnataka,  Revenue  Department and Tehsildar, Land Reforms, Koppa, Chick’ magalur District, Karnataka.     During  the hearing we noticed that the affidavit  filed by  the complainant as well as the affidavit filed in  reply to the contest petition both were not in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules or Order 19 Rule 3  of Code of Civil Procedure. Smt. Savithramma; the  complainant, has filed affidavit in support of the contempt petition.  In paragraph 2 of her affidavit she stated that the  statements contained in the contempt petition were true to the best  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

her  knowledge, belief and information. In paragraph  3  she has  further stated that the affidavit had been  read  over, translated  and  explained  to her and  she  understood  the contents  thereof and has further stated that the same  were true  to her knowledge. The affidavit is clearly  vague  and general  and  it does not comply with the requirement  of  a valid  affidavit as laid down in Order XI Rules 5 and 13  of the  Supreme Court Rules. The affidavit is defective  as  it does not indicate as to what facts were true to her personal knowledge,  information and belief. Order XI Rule 2  of  the Supreme Court Rules lays down that evidence in support of an application may be given by affidavit in the Supreme  Court: Rule provides that affidavit shall be confined to such facts as  the  deponent  is able of his own  knowledge  to  prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his  belief  may  be admitted,  provided  that  the  grounds thereof   are   stated.  Rule  13  provides  that   in   the verification  of petitions, pleadings or other  proceedings, statements   based   on   personal   knowledge   shall    be distinguished  from  statements  based  on  information  and belief.  In the case of statements based on information  the deponent  shall  disclose  the source  of  his  information. Similar  provisions are contained in Order 19 Rule 3 of  the                                                   PG NO 564 Code  of  Civil Procedure. Affidavit is a  mode  of  placing evidence before the Court. A party may prove a fact or facts by  means of affidavit before this Court but such  affidavit should be in accordance with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of  the Supreme  Court Rules. The purpose underlying Rules 5 and  13 of  Order  XI of the Supreme Court Rules is  to  enable  the Court  to find out as to whether it would be safe to act  on such  evidence  and to enable the court to know as  to  what facts  are based in the affidavit on the basis  of  personal knowledge,  information and belief as this is  relevant  for the  purpose of appreciating the evidence placed before  the Court,   in  the  form  of  affidavit.  The  importance   of verification has to be judged by the purpose for which it is required.  It  is only on the basis or verification,  it  is possible  to decide the genuineness and authenticity of  the allegations and the deponent can be held responsible for the allegations made in the affidavit. In this Court evidence in support  of  the  statements  contained  in  writ  petition, special    leave   petitions,   applications    and    other miscellaneous matters, is accepted in the form of  affidavit filed  by the parties concerned. It is  therefore  necessary that the party stating facts must disclose as to what  facts are  true to his personal knowledge, information or  belief. If the statement of fact is based on information the  source of  information  must  be disclosed  in  the  affidavit.  An affidavit which does not comply with the provisions of Order XT of the Supreme Court Rules, has no probative value and it is  liable to be rejected. In a matter where allegations  of mala  fides  or disobedience of the Court’s order  are  made against a person or party it is all the more necessary  that the   person filing affidavit in this regard must take  care to  verify  the facts stated in the  affidavit  strictly  in accordance  with  the  Rules 5 and 13 of  Order  XI  of  the Supreme Court Rules.     We are constrained to observe that of late affidavit are being  filed  in  this Court in a  slipshod  manner  without having  any regard to the Rules. Affidavits are being  filed by  person  who could have no personal knowledge  about  the facts  stated in the affidavit. Deponents of affidavits  pay no  attention  to  verification, although  this  court  laid stress  on this aspect as early as 1952. In State of  Bombay

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

v.  Purushottam  Jog: Naik, [l952] SCK 674,  a  Constitution Bench  considering  the  importance of  verification  of  an affidavit observed:     "We  wish, however, to observe that the verification  of the  affidavits produced here is defective. The body of  the affidavit  discloses that certain matters were known to  the Secretary who made the affidavit personally.The verification however  states that everything was true to the best of  his                                                   PG NO 565 information  and  belief.  We point  this  out  as  slipshod verification  of this type might in a given case lead  to  a rejection  of the affidavit. Verification should  invariably be modelled on the lines of Order XIX, Rule 3, of the  Civil Procedure  Code, whether the Code applies in terms  or  not. And  when  the matter deposed to is not  based  on  personal knowledge  the  sources  of information  should  be  clearly disclosed."     In  the instant case verification of  the  complainant’s affidavit is defective  and it would not be safe to  proceed on the allegations mentioned in the contempt petition.     The  matter does not rest here. The affidavit  filed  on behalf  of the accused in reply to the contempt petition  is shocking.  The Office clerk of the advocate for the  accused has filed affidavit on behalf of the accused in reply to the contempt petition. The deponent of the counter affidavit has verified the affidavit saying that the statement of the case of  the accused are true and correct which are based on  the records  maintained in the office of the advocate and  based on  the  instructions  received from the  clients.  Such  an affidavit  is wholly improper and inadmissible  in  evidence and liable to be rejected. What reliance can be placed on an affidavit filed by a person sitting at Delhi and that too  a clerk of an advocate practicing at Delhi giving reply to the allegations   and  facts  and  circumstances   existing   at Karnataka  on the basis of records maintained in  advocate’s office at Delhi. The practice of clerks of advocates  filing affidavits   without   a  proper  verification   should   be deprecated. As matters before the apex court are  determined on the basis of the statements contained in affidavits it is the duty of the litigants and the layers to file  affidavits in  accordance  with  the  rules  to  assist  the  Court  in administering justice.     Since  the  affidavit filed in Support of  the  contempt petition  as well as the affidavit in reply to the  petition do nut comply with Rules. no reliance can be placed on  them and  both are liable to be rejected. We  accordingly  reject the same and the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. But we give a chance to the parties to file proper affidavits within six weeks. List thereafter. N.P.V.                                                   PG NO 566