I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. The petitioners have filed a suit for declaration of tenancy in respect of the suit premises. Recording of evidence commenced in the suit. The petitioners examined their witnesses who were cross examined by the respondents. The respondents filed an affidavit in lieu of evidence of one Gul. R. Advani. The said affidavit is dated 11th April, 2008. According to the petitioner, it was noticed that the said affidavit was not signed by the said witness and it was not affirmed by him before any officer. It was found that the witness had put his signature below verification clause. After noticing this, the petitioners made an application on 18th July, 2008 before the trial Court by pointing out the aforesaid infirn1ities in the affidavit. It was contended that the purported affidavit cannot be treated as an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The prayer in the said application was that the said affidavit be rejected.

2. The said application was contested by the respondent by filing a reply. By Judgment and Order dated 17th November, 2008, the learned Trial Judge rejected the application made by the petitioners. The learned Judge observed that the affidavit was not affirmed by the witness but thereafter witness entered the witness box and on oath he stated before the Court that the contents of the affidavit were true and correct. The learned Judge observed that the fact that the oral evidence of the witness was recorded was more than sufficient. The learned Judge also observed that an application made for permission to affirm the affidavit was being heard separately. A revision application was preferred by the petitioners for challenging the said order. The revision application was not admitted and was summarily rejected. The Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court held that the impugned order does not affect any substantive rights of the petitioners and therefore, the revision application against a purely procedural order was not maintainable.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners apart from submitting that the revision application was maintainable has made detailed submissions on merits.

She relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of F.D. C. Ltd. vs. Federation of Medical Representatives Association India (FMRAI) and others, 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 327 = AIR 2003 Bombay 371. She submitted that the affidavit under Rule 4 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the said Code) has to be in conformity with the requirements of Rule 3 of Order XIX of the said Code. She placed reliance on the definition of the affidavit under the General Clauses Act. She submitted that the document tendered by the respondents cannot be an affidavit as admittedly it was not affirmed before any competent officer by administering the oath to the witness. She submitted that by no stretch of imagination such document can be termed as an affidavit the same has not been affirmed on oath. Her submission is that unless the affidavit was affirmed before an officer who was authorised to administer oath, the same cannot be treated as an affidavit. She submitted that the affirmation of an affidavit is not an empty formality in as much as in the event a false statement is made by a witness on oath, he can be prosecuted. Her submission is that in absence of affirmation, the document cannot be treated as an affidavit. She also invited my attention to what is held by this Court in paragraph 20 and 21 of the decision of this Court in case of FDC Ltd. (supra) [2003(3) Mh.L.J. 327]. She submitted that there is no proper verification below the affidavit. The witness ought to have stated as to which facts are true and correct as per his knowledge and which facts are based on information which he has reason to believe. She, therefore, submitted that even on t