9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to order passed by Civil Judge regarding affidavit sworn before Notary for adducing evidence in a suit.
Summary: The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, regarding the acceptance of an affidavit sworn before a Notary for adducing evidence in a suit. The Judge rejected the application stating that the affidavit must be sworn before Court machinery, not a Notary. The petitioners argued that Section 139 of the CPC allows affidavits sworn before a Notary to be treated as evidence. The respondents had differing views on the matter, with one supporting the Judge's decision and the other emphasizing the need for the Court to consider the nature of evidence and witness importance. The Judge's order was based on the belief that notarized affidavits are not allowed under Order 18, Rule 4 of the CPC. The petitioners contended that Section 139 of the CPC permits affidavits sworn before a Notary to be accepted as evidence in court proceedings. The amendment to Section 139 was introduced to address the issue of courts refusing such affidavits. The Civil Manual also confirms that Notaries are authorized to administer oaths to deponents, making affidavits sworn before them admissible. The Judge's order was deemed incorrect and illegal at law, leading to its quashing and setting aside. The petitioners' affidavit was directed to be taken on record as evidence, and the suit was to proceed accordingly. In conclusion, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Civil Judge to proceed with the suit, ensuring its disposal within six months. The Court emphasized the admissibility of affidavits sworn before Notaries under Section 139 of the CPC, overruling the Judge's decision to reject such evidence.
|
