Verification of an affidavit is essential to test its genuineness and authenticity. It should disclose the source of information and belief. Failure to do so renders the affidavit defective. Re-verification by filing a supplementary affidavit amounts to amendment and is not permissible.

In the course of the hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the two affidavits, namely, one bearing tender No. 8389/4 to oppose the writ petition and the other bearing No. 8387/2 which is a counter to the rejoinder filed by the peti-tioner, filed on 25-5-91 on behalf of respon-dents 1, 2 and 5 are to be rejected for lack of proper verification. The writ petition was heard at some length. On 11-6-91, the day to which the hearing of the writ petition was adjourned, Shri G. C. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 5, prayed that he may be allowed to file an application for leave to re-verify the two affidavits. The prayer was allowed. Accordingly, a petition was filed alongwith two proposed supplemen-tary affidavits with an alternative prayer to allow them to file fresh affidavits.

2. Paragraph 26 of the affidavit bearing tender No. 8389/4 runs :

"26. That the statements made in this counter-affidavit in paras - 1 and 2 - are true to my knowledge, those made in paras 3, 6 and 7 to 25 are true to my belief and those made in paras 4 and 5 are matters of records which, I firmly believe to be true.".

Paragraph 18 of the affidavit bearing tender No. 8387/2 reads :

"18. That, statements in this counter-affi-davit in paras 1 and 2 are true to my know-ledge, those made in paras 1 to 4 and 6 to 15 and 17 are true to belief and those made in paras 5 and 6 are matters of records which firmly believe to be true.".

The first part of the verification in each of the original affidavits quoted above indicates that the statement made in paragraphs-1 and 2 of each of the original affidavits are true to the knowledge of the deponent. On perusal of paragraphs 1 and 2 of each of the original affidavits, it appears, that the statements are introductory in nature. But in the second part of the verification of each of the original affidavits, sources of information have not been disclosed.

3. In State of Bombay v. Purushottam, AIR 1952 SC 317, (1952 Cri LJ 1269) it has been held :

"The verification however states that every-thing was true to the best of his information and belief. We point this out as slipshod verifications of this type might well in a given case lead to a rejection of the affidavit. Verification should invariably be modelled on the lines of Order 19, 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 dis-closed."

(Emphasis added)

4. The above principle was reiterated in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295. In AKK Nambiar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 652 : (1970 Lab IC 566) the Supreme Court has held :

"The importance of verification is to test the genuineness and authenticity of allega-tions and also to make the deponent re-sponsible for allegations. In essence verifi-cation is required to enable the Court to find out as to whether it will he safe to act on such affidavit evidence. In the present case, the affidavits of all the parties suffer from the mischief of lack of proper verification with the result that the affidavits should not be admissible in evidence." (Emphasis added)

5. In Sukhwinder Pal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 65, the Supreme Court has held :

"Under Order XIX, Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it was incumbent upon he deponent to disclose the nature and source of his knowledge with sufficient particular-ity. ".

6. In Savitramma v. Naronha, AIR 1988 SC 1987, The Supreme Court has summa-rised the principles laid down in the earlier cases referred to above.

7. Rule 26 of the Chapter IV of the Gauhati High Court Rules (for short the Rules) relates to verification of affidavit when the declarant speaks about any facts within his knowledge. Rule 27 of the Rules provides that when the statement rests on facts disclosed in the documents, the de-ponent shall state the sour