R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) WHEN the matter came up for consideration on 14-2-1997 during arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that while the petitioner is 'v. R. Kamath', the vakalath and the affidavit verifying the writ petition are signed 'kaviraja'. He pointed out that neither the petition, nor the affidavit or vakalath indicated that Petitioner was represented by any Attorney Holder. The Counsel for Petitioner admitted that the affidavit and vakalath were signed by a different person, due to oversight. In the circumstances, a notice was issued to the Oath Commissioner who had administered the oath, to produce the register maintained by her to show whether such an affidavit was sworn to before her and to offer her explanation. The Oath Commissioner has filed her explanation by way of an affidavit dated 17-2-1997. At the request of the Petitioner's counsel, this case which was directed to be listed on 28-2-1997, is taken up today.

( 2 ) THE Oath Commissioner has admitted that she had administered the oath regard to the affidavit verifying the petition on 30-1-1997; that due to oversight, the signature of some one other than the petitioner was obtained to the affidavit of petitioner; and that though the normally insists that the persons making the affidavits should appear before her and sign the affidavits, in this case the mistake has occurred unintentionally and accidentally. Though she was required to produce the Oath Register maintained by her, she has not produced it. She stated in answer to a query that she has not recorded this transaction in the Oath Register nor issued a receipt for the fee received. She has assured that she will ensure in future that no such errors occurred.

( 3 ) NOTARIES and Oath Commissioners are required to follow the Rules carefully in administering oath/affirmation. The act should not be done in a casual or incomplete manner giving room for an impression that the affidavit has been attested in the absence of the deponent or that the affidavit has been attested on a day other than the day on which it was signed by the deponent or that the transaction has not been entered in the Oath Register. The possibility of a mix up in regard to the persons signing the affidavits or possibility of an oath or affirmation being administered to a wrong person, is a matter of grave concern. The Rules have been framed precisely to safeguard against such contingencies and to ensure that such mistakes do not occur. On account of the Rules not being followed sincerely, such mistakes and mix-ups continue to occur.

( 4 ) IT is unfortunate that the importance of affidavits and the seriousness attached to due and proper execution thereof is constantly ignored or missed by the persons concerned. An affidavit is not a mere typed format, to be signed and attested as an empty formality. An affidavit is a solemn and voluntary declaration or statement of facts in writing, relating to matters in question or at issue, and sworn or affirmed and signed by the deponent before a person or officer duly authorised to administer such oath or affirmation. An affidavit constitutes evidence, where so provided or agreed. Ordinarily evidence has to be recorded viva voce and matters should be decided on such oral evidence. But in several types of cases, in particular summary proceedings, facts are permitted to be proved by affidavits; and affidavits are treated as a substitute for oral evidence. The Courts are required to determine disputes or causes and make orders or give judgments, acting on such affidavits. In the absence of due 'affirmation' or 'swearing', an affidavit has no value and in fact is not valid. 4. 1. Order 19, Rule I of C. P. C. provides that any Court may order that particular fact may be proved by affidavit. Order 37a, Rule 3 of CPC provides that every interlocutory application shall be supported by an affidavit. Chapter X, Rule 2 of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 provides that every int

Click Here to Read the rest of this document