Affidavit signer mistake deems petition defective, Oath Commissioner oversight acknowledged. Court stresses oath importance

The court found that the affidavit verifying the writ petition was signed by someone other than the petitioner, leading to the petition being deemed defective. Despite this, no action was taken against the Oath Commissioner, who admitted the oversight. The court emphasized the importance of correctly administering oaths and affirmations, citing legal provisions governing such procedures. It outlined the requirements for maintaining records by Notaries and Oath Commissioners and specified that defective affidavits would not be accepted by the courts. The court granted one week for rectification of the defective petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Discrepancy in the signing of the affidavit and vakalath.
2. Oversight by the Oath Commissioner.
3. Importance and procedure of administering oaths and affirmations.
4. Legal provisions governing the administration of oaths and affirmations.
5. Requirements for maintaining records by Notaries and Oath Commissioners.
6. Consequences of defective affidavits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Discrepancy in the signing of the affidavit and vakalath:
When the matter was considered, it was noted that the affidavit verifying the writ petition was signed by someone other than the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel admitted this oversight. Consequently, a notice was issued to the Oath Commissioner to produce the register and offer an explanation. The Oath Commissioner admitted the mistake and explained that it was unintentional.

2. Oversight by the Oath Commissioner:
The Oath Commissioner admitted to administering the oath on the affidavit verifying the petition and acknowledged that the signature of someone other than the petitioner was obtained due to oversight. She did not record this transaction in the Oath Register nor issued a receipt for the fee received. She assured that such errors would be avoided in the future.

3. Importance and procedure of administering oaths and affirmations:
The court emphasized that Notaries and Oath Commissioners must follow the rules meticulously to prevent any impression that affidavits are attested without the deponent's presence or on a different day. The court highlighted the solemnity and sanctity of administering oaths and affirmations, stressing that affidavits constitute evidence and must be properly executed.

4. Legal provisions governing the administration of oaths and affirmations:
The judgment detailed various legal provisions, including:
- Order 19, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., which allows facts to be proved by affidavit.
- Order 37A, Rule 3 of the CPC, and Chapter X, Rule 2 of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, which require interlocutory applications to be supported by affidavits.
- Rule 3 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, which mandates that writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India be supported by an affidavit.
- Section 3(1) and (2) of the Oath Act, 1969, and Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empower courts and authorized persons to administer oaths and affirmations.
- Section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the administration of oaths for affidavits used in court.

5. Requirements for maintaining records by Notaries and Oath Commissioners:
The court outlined the mandatory requirements for Notaries and Oath Commissioners to maintain registers, enter transaction particulars, and obtain signatures. It stressed that endorsements on affidavits should include the serial number of the transaction and the place of attestation. The judgment also referenced Rule 5A of Chapter XI of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, and Rule 28A of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, which prescribe maintaining records and submitting quarterly reports.

6. Consequences of defective affidavits:
The court stated that defective affidavits, not attested as required by law, would not be acted upon by the courts. The judgment directed the Registry of the Court and the Secretary, Law Department, Government of Karnataka, to ensure compliance with the rules and to bring these requirements to the notice of Oath Commissioners and Notaries. The directions were to be effective prospectively to avoid invalidating past acts.

Conclusion:
The court, considering the explanation and assurance from the Oath Commissioner, decided not to initiate action against her. However, it held that the petition was defective due to the affidavit being signed by someone other than the petitioner and granted one week for rectification. The order was accordingly issued.

Order:
The petition is defective due to the incorrect signing of the affidavit. One week is granted for rectification.

---