LexSMT. SAVITHRAMMA versus CECIL NARONHA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA v. CECIL NARONHA & ANR. AUGUST 23, 1988 [E:S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. S(NGH, JJ.] Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Order XI, Rules 5 and· 13-Affi- davit-Mode of placing evidence-Defective affidavit has no probative value-Strict compliance with rules-Proper verification-Especially where allegations.of ma/a [ides or disobedience of Court's order made- Necessity for. 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 stilted that the statemenis 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 belier.· 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 in accordance with Order XI Rul~s Sand l3 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~affidav_it. An affidavit which does not comply with the provisions of. 561 A B c D E F G H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. A Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, has no probative value and it is liable to be rejected. l564D] 1.3 In a matter where allegations of ma/a /ides or disobedience of the Cout1's order are made against a person or party, it is all the more necessary that the person filing arr.davit in this regard must take care to B verify the facts stated in the arr.davit strictly in accordance with the Rules 5 and 13. [564E] 1.4 Of late afr.davits are beiilg flied 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 C verification. [564F] State1of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik, [1952] SCR 674, refer- red to. 0 1.5 The· practice of clerks of advocates filing affidavits without a proper veri!1<;,11tion 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 witli the rules to assist theCourt in administering justice. [56SE-FJ E In the instant case, the affidavit filed by the complainant is clerly vague, general and defective, and does not i,JJdicate 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 ~3 ofithe Supreme Court Rules. Slmllarly, the arr.davit in reply flied on behalf of the accused 'by omce clerk of the Advocate Is wholly Improper F ilnd iliachnlsslble in evidence and liable to be rejected. [563E-F, 5650] Since both the arr.davits do not comply with the Roles, no reliance [ C@n 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] (jJ ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition No. 31997 of 1987. IN H Civil Appeal No. 2277 of 1986. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA v. C. NARONHA [SINGH, J.] 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.