1988 (8) TMI 431 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt petition dismissed for non-compliance with Supreme Court Rules. Emphasizes adherence for credible evidence.

The Court dismissed the contempt petition due to non-compliance with Supreme Court Rules for filing affidavits. Both the complainant's and reply ... - Issues:1. Contempt petition for failure to comply with court orders.2. Compliance with Supreme Court Rules for filing affidavits.Analysis:1. The complainant filed a petition seeking contempt action against the accused for not complying with the court's orders dated 14.7.1986. However, both the complainant's affidavit and the reply affidavit did not adhere to the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules or Order 19 Rule 3 of CPC. The complainant's affidavit lacked specificity and failed to distinguish between facts based on personal knowledge, information, and belief, as required by the rules. The purpose of verification in affidavits is crucial to determine the authenticity of the allegations, especially in cases involving disobedience of court orders or mala fides. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the rules to ensure the probative value of affidavits in presenting evidence before the Court.2. The Court observed a trend of filing affidavits in a careless manner without following the rules, even by individuals lacking personal knowledge of the stated facts. Referring to a previous judgment highlighting the significance of proper verification, the Court stressed the need for meticulous verification following the guidelines of Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the present case, the verification in the complainant's affidavit was found to be defective, leading to doubts about the allegations in the contempt petition. Furthermore, the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the accused by an office clerk of an advocate was deemed improper and inadmissible, as it lacked a valid verification process and was based on records from a different location. The Court criticized the practice of clerks filing affidavits without proper verification, emphasizing the responsibility of litigants and lawyers to submit affidavits in compliance with the rules to assist in the administration of justice.3. Due to the non-compliance of both affidavits with the rules, the Court concluded that no reliance could be placed on them, leading to the rejection of both affidavits and dismissal of the contempt petition on this ground. However, the Court granted the parties an opportunity to file proper affidavits within six weeks to rectify the deficiencies. The judgment highlighted the necessity of strict adherence to the rules governing the filing of affidavits in matters presented before the Supreme Court to ensure the credibility and reliability of the evidence submitted for consideration.