MANU/SC/0455/1988

Equivalent Citation: AIR1988SC 1987, 1989C riLJ85, JT1988(3)SC 432, (1988)94(2)PLR522, 1988(2)SC ALE406, [1988]Supp2SC R561,
1988(2)UJ631

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Contempt Petition No. 31997 of 1987 in Civil Appeal No. 2277 of 1986
Decided On: 23.08.1988
Appellants: Savithramma
Vs.
Respondent: Cecil Naronha and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
E.S. Venkataramiah and K.N. Singh, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Padmanabha Mahale, Adv
For Respondents/Defendant: M. Veerappa, Adv.
Case Note:
Contempt of Court - affidavit - Order 19 Rule 3 and Orders 11 and 19 Rules
2 and 3 of CPC,1908 and Order 11 Rules 5 and 13 of Supreme Court Rules -
petitioner sought action against accused for their failure to comply with
Court Orders - affidavits filed in support of contempt petition as well as its
reply were not in accordance with provisions of Order 11 Rules 5 and 13 or
Order 19 Rule 3 of Code - party stating facts must disclose as to what facts
are true to his personal, knowledge information or belief - it is duty of
litigants and lawyers to file affidavits in accordance with Rules to assist
Court in administering justice - petition liable to be rejected as affidavits
from both sides do not comply with Rules - petitioner given opportunity to
file proper affidavit.
JUDGMENT
K.N. Singh, J
1. The complainant has by means of this petition claimed relief for taking action for
contempt against the accused for their failure to comply with the orders of this Court
dated 14.7.1986 made in Civil Appeal No. 2277 of 1986 and to punish the accused
who include the Secretary and Commissioner, Government of Karnataka, Revenue
Department and Tehsildar, Land Reforms, Koppa, Chickmagalur District, Karnataka.
2. During the hearing we noticed that the affidavit filed by the complainant as well as
the affidavit filed in reply to the contempt petition both were not in accordance with
the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules or Order 19 Rule 3 of CPC. Smt.
Savithramma, the complainant, has filed affidavit in support of the contempt petition.
In paragraph 2 of her affidavit she stated that the statements contained in the
contempt petition were true to the best of her knowledge, belief and information. In
paragraph 3 she has further stated that the affidavit had been read over, translated
and explained to her and she understood the contents thereof and has further stated
that the same were true to her knowledge. The affidavit is clearly vague and general
and it does not comply with the requirement of a valid affidavit as laid down in Order

31-07-2019 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP

XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules. The affidavit is defective as it does
not indicate as to What facts were true to her personal knowledge, information and
belief. Order XI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules lays down that evidence in
support of an application may be given by affidavit in the Supreme Court. Rule 5
provides that affidavit 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. Rule 13
provides that in the verification of petitions, pleadings or other proceedings,
statements based on personal knowledge shall be distinguished from statements
based on information and belief. In the case of statements based on information the
deponent shall disclose the source of his information. Similar provisions are
contained in Order 19 Rule 3 of the CPC. Affidavit is a mode of placing evidence
before the Court. A party may prove a fact or facts by means of affidavit before this
Court but such affidavit should be in accordance with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the
Supreme Court Rules. The purpose underlying Rules 5 and 13 of Order XI of the
Supreme Court Rules is to enable the Court to find out as to whether it would be safe
to act on such evidence and to enable the court to know as to what facts are based in
the affidavit on the basis of personal knowledge, information and belief as this is
relevant for the purpose of appreciating the evidence placed before the Court, in the
form of affidavit. The importance of verification has to be judged by the purpose for
which it is required. It is only on the basis or verification, it is possible to decide "the
genuineness and authenticity of the allegations and the deponent can be held
responsible for the allegations made in the affidavit. In this Court evidence in support
of the statements contained in writ petitions, special leave petitions, applications and
other miscellaneous matters, is accepted in the form of affidavit filed by the parties
concerned. It is therefore necessary that the party stating facts must disclose as to
what facts are true to his personal knowledge, information or belief. If the statement
of fact is based on information the source of information must be disclosed in the
affidavit. An affidavit which does not comply with the provisions of Order XI of the
Supreme Court Rules, has no probative value and it is liable to be rejected. In a
matter where allegations of mala fides or disobedience of the Court's order are made
against a person or party it is all the more necessary that the person filing affidavit in
this regard must take care to verify the facts stated in the affidavit strictly in
accordance with the Rules 5 and 13 of Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules.
3. We are constrained to observe that of late affidavit are being filed in this Court in
a slipshod manner without having any regard to the Rules. Affidavits are being filed
by persons who could have no personal knowledge about the facts stated in the
affidavit. Deponents of affidavits pay no attention to verification, although this Court
laid stress on this aspect as early as 1952. In State of Jog Naik MANU/SC/0016/1952
: 1952CriL J1269 , a Constitution Bench considering the importance of verification of
an affidavit observed:
We wish, however, to observe that the verification of the affidavits produced
here is defective. The body of the affidavit discloses that certain matters
were known to the Secretary who made the affidavit personally. The
verification however states that everything 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. Verifications
should invariably be modelled on the lines of Order XIX, 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 disclosed.
4 . In the instant case verification of the complainant's affidavit is defective and it

31-07-2019 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP

would not be safe to proceed on the allegations mentioned in the contempt petition.
5. The matter does not rest here. The affidavit filed on behalf of the accused in reply
to the contempt petition is shocking. The Office clerk of the advocate for the accused
has filed affidavit on behalf of the accused in reply to the contempt petition. The
deponent of the counter affidavit has verified the affidavit saying that the statement
of the case of the accused are true and correct which are based on the records
maintained in the office of the advocate and based on the instructions received from
the clients. Such an affidavit is wholly improper and inadmissible in evidence and
liable to be rejected. What reliance can be placed on an affidavit filed by a person
sitting at Delhi and that too a clerk of an advocate practising at Delhi giving reply to
the allegations and facts and circumstances existing at Karnataka on the basis of
records maintained in advocate's office at Delhi. The practice of clerks of advocates
filing affidavits without a proper verification should be deprecated. As matters before
the apex court are determined on the basis of the statements contained in affidavits it
is the duty of the litigants and the lawyers to file affidavits in accordance with the
rules to assist the Court in administering justice.
6. Since the affidavit filed in Support of the contempt petition as well as the affidavit
in reply to the petition do not comply with Rules, no reliance can be placed on them
and both are liable to be rejected. We accordingly reject the same and the contempt
petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. But we give a chance to the
parties to file proper affidavits within six weeks. List thereafter.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

31-07-2019 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP