Hon’ble N.A. Moonis, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants,Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA and have been taken through the record.

2. At the very outset, it revealed that the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 is not in accordance with the Rules of the Court as the deponent has neither put the signature/thumb impression on any page of the counter-affidavit nor the Advocate has put his signature identifying the deponent while it is mandatory under the provisions of the High Court Rules to swear each and every paragraphs of the affidavit and the deponent has to put his signature/thumb impression. The person swearing an affidavit must be identified by the Advocate who is reasonably satisfied as to his identity. The striking feature of the counter-affidavit is that the Oath Commissioner has only put his seal without examining the contents of the counter-affidavit as to whether he has filled all the paragraphs of the affidavit and whether the deponent has put his signature/thumb impresion and has been identified by the concern Advocate or not. This type of casual practice on the part of the Oath C