Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion analyses the verifications appended to two affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The first affidavit's verification, dated 5th August 1981, reads:

"VERIFIED at Delhi on this 5th day of August 1981 that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my best knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom"

The second affidavit's verification, dated 23rd September 1981, reads:

"VERIFIED at Delhi on this 23rd day of September 1981 that the contents of all the aforesaid paras and sub-paras of my above affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge, knowledge from the records and the information received and the legal advice sought and believed to be true and correct and nothing has been concealed therefrom"

The court refers to Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and examines whether the verifications comply with that provision. The court concludes that the two affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff are valueless.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the verifications on the two affidavits comply with Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether affidavits not properly verified can be admitted in evidence.
3. Whether the two affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff retain any evidentiary value in view of their verifications.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds from the text of Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, quoted in the opinion:

"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"

From that provision the court extracts three permissible forms of verification:

• Affidavits affirmed as true to the deponent's own knowledge;
• Affidavits based on information received, provided the source of the information is disclosed;
• Affidavits stating beliefs, but only where the grounds for such belief are expressly stated (and, as noted, this is generally confined to interlocutory applications).

The court examines the two verifications in light of these requirements. It observes that an affidavit must disclose whether statements are from personal knowledge, from information with source disclosed, or are beliefs with stated grounds. If a verification fails to meet these standards, it is of no evidentiary use.

To reinforce this legal principle, the court cites the decision in A. K. K. Nambiar v. Union of India and another, where it was observed that affidavits not properly verified cannot be admitted in evidence. Applying this principle to the present verifications, the court concludes that the two affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff do not meet the verification requirements and therefore lack evidentiary value.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court held that the two affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff are valueless and, consistent with authority cited, improperly verified affidavits cannot be admitted in evidence.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that the two affidavits relied upon by the plaintiff have no evidentiary value in the proceedings before the court.
• The opinion applies the existing provision of Order 19 Rule 3(1) and the cited precedent; it does not announce any new legal principle beyond reaffirming that improperly verified affidavits are inadmissible.