Affidavits filed in support of interlocutory orders must be duly verified in accordance with Order 19, Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Absence of such verification is fatal to the affidavit and the evidence contained therein should not be admitted or relied upon.

ORDER :- In this application the applicant who was the original plaintiff seeks to have the order of the Additional District Judge, Panajl, dated November 22, 1976, set aside. By the said order the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of the trial Court granting an interim injunction in suit filed by the plaintiff against the respondents, defendants.

2. In support of the application of the plaintiff for interim injunction the plaintiff filed a map and two affidavits. The defendants also filed a map and nine affidavits. In appeal the Additional District Judge did not go into the merit of the finding on facts. He held that the maps filed by the plaintiff and the defendants were contradictory and ought not to have been relied upon by the trial Court without site inspection. He further held that the affidavits filed by the plaintiff were not verified and did not therefore have any evidentiary value.

3. On the question of maps it appears that no definite conclusion could be drawn, but the decision of the trial Court is not based merely on maps. In fact, no decision could be arrived at solely on the maps on record.

4. On the question of affidavits I have no hesitation in saying that the affidavits must be duly verified. Ordinarily any conclusion of the Court should be arrived at upon evidence, subject to cross-examination, if any. An exception is made by O. 19 of the C.P.C. by allowing proof of certain facts to be made by affidavits. It therefore stands to reason that these affidavits should strictly abide with the prescribed form. Order 1.9, R. 3 (1) states that affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove. An exception is made in case of interlocutory applications. In such applications statements of his belief may be admitted. It is contended by Shri Ferdino Rebello, learned advocate for the plaintiff, that in view of the provisions of R. 3 (1) affidavits filed in interlocutory applications are deemed to contain only facts which the deponent is able to prove of his own knowledge, unless it is stated in the affidavit that some of the statements relate to his belief. I am unable to agree with this argument. To my mind, in view of the specific provisions of R. 3 (1) a verification is necessary. Rule 3 (1) makes it incumbent upon the parties swearing affidavits to state that the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove the facts stated in the affidavit. The main reason why a verification of an affidavit must be strictly made is that the deponent must be made responsible for the statements made by him. In the absence of a statement that the facts deposed to are of his own knowledge, it will always be open to the deponent to escape any criminal liability by stating that the

statements he made in the affidavit are of his belief and not of his knowledge. Proof by affidavits is a weak manner of proofs. Such proof is however allowed with a view to expediting proceedings. It would be well-nigh impossible to dispose of interlocutory applications within a short time if proof by affidavits was not allowed. For all these reasons verification of affidavits is of paramount importance. Absence of such verification is fatal to the affidavit and the evidence contained therein should not be admitted or relied upon.

5. Shri Borges, learned advocate for the defendants, has invited my attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts laying down this principle. In A. K. K. Nambiar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 652, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that the reasons for verification of affidavits are to enable the Court to find out which facts could be said to be proved on the affidavit evidence of rival parties. Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegations may be true to information received from person or allegations may be based on records. The importance of verification, the Supreme Court observed, is to test the genuineness and authenticity of al