SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Mad) 633

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN
M. Sampath
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary, Home Dept. Madras
W.P. SR. No. 73951 of 1989
Decided On :Decided on : 22-12-1989

An affidavit is intended only to contain the facts to be used in support of the prayer. There is no Rule requiring the inclusion of the prayer in the affidavit.

Headnote:

AFFIDAVIT - FORM AND CONTENTS - O. 19, R. 3(1), CPC - O. 6, R. 3, APPELLATE SIDE RULES - O. 35, R. 7, SUPREME COURT RULES - S. 3(3), GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - S. 295, 297(2), CRPC - R. 1, 2, O. 15, ORIGINAL SIDE RULES - An affidavit is intended only to contain the facts to be used in support of the prayer. There is no Rule requiring the inclusion of the prayer in the affidavit.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition with an affidavit that did not include the prayer, as is the usual practice. The Registry raised an objection, and the matter was posted before the Court for orders on the Office Note.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that there is no Rule requiring the inclusion of the prayer in the affidavit. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is in proper form and that there is no necessity to include the prayer in the affidavit.

Issues: Whether the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is in proper form and that there is no necessity to include the prayer in the affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Rule 2 of the Rules framed by the Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, O. 19, Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, O. 6, Rule 3 of the Appellate Side Rules, O. 35, R. 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, S. 3(3) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 295, 297(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and R. 1, 2, O. 15 of the Original Side Rules to hold that an affidavit is intended only to contain the facts to be used in support of the prayer and that there is no Rule requiring the inclusion of the prayer in the affidavit.

Final Decision: The Court overruled the objection raised by the Registry and directed the Registry to accept the affidavit as it is and number the writ petition, if it is otherwise in order.

Judgment :-

1. But for the fact that there is a long-standing practice, which according to my information is older than myself by about two or three decades, I would not have thought it necessary to write a considered order in this matter.

2. The writ petition is supported by an affidavit, the form of which differs from the affidavits which are usually filed in this Court in support of petitions. It has been the practice to state the prayer of the petitioner in the last paragraph of the affidavit filed in support thereof. That last paragraph will be reproduced in the petition. While affidavits are being signed by the parties, the petitions are signed only by counsel. The Registry used to compare the petition with the last paragraph of the affidavit and verify whether there is any discrepancy between them and d there is one, it will be got rectified. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner struck a new path by not including the prayer in the affidavit. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stops with the grounds on which the relief is sought and the last paragraph reads thus:—

“For the reasons aforesaid and those that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honble Court be pleased to grant all the reliefs as prayed for in the Memo. of Writ Petition”.

2. The Registry raised an objection, as it is always accustomed to see affidavits containing the prayers made in the petitions. Learned counsel stood firm in his stand and had the matter posted before Court for orders on Office Note.


3. Learned counsel places reliance on Rule 2 of the Rules framed by this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Rules 1 and 2 read as follows:—

“1. An application for a direction, order or writ, including a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto or Prohibition shall be by Original Petition to be entitled “Writ Petition No. of ???” and shall be filed in the office of the Registrar by the petitioner or his duly authorised advocate or attorney.

2. Every such petition shall set out the provision of law under which it is made, the name and description of the petitioner and the respondent, the nature of the relief sought and shall be accompanied by an affidavit. Setting forth the grounds of the relief sought, the other remedy, if any, available to the petitioner and if not availed of, the reasons therefor. The petition shall be signed by the petitioner or his advocate or attorney”.

4. The Rule merely says that the affidavit accompanying the petition shall set forth the grounds of the relief sought. It does not compel the deponent to include the prayer made in the petition as part of the affidavit. The petition has to be signed by the petitioner or his advocate or attorney. R. 1 is to the effect that an application for issue of a writ shall be by Original Petition. Normally, Original Petitions are to be signed by the parties containing a verification at the end of it. But, R. 2 is specific in that a writ petition need not be signed by the parties always. It may be signed by the party or his counsel. The mandate is only with regard to a signature in the petition, which may be that of the party himself or his counsel.

5. Learned counsel drew my attention to the provisions of O. 19, Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the said Rule, “affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted; provided that the grounds thereof are stated”. Under that Rule also, it is not necessary for the deponent to include the prayer in the affidavit. Of course, by virtue of S. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply to any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel referred to O. 6, Rule

3 of the Appellate Side Rules, accordi






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top