Verification of affidavits in contempt proceedings requires clear separation of personal knowledge and disclosed sources of information.

Affidavits filed in support of and in reply to a contempt petition must comply with verification requirements under the Supreme Court Rules and the Code of Civil Procedure. The affidavit must clearly separate facts based on personal knowledge from those based on information and belief, and disclose the source of information where required. A vague, general, or improperly verified affidavit has no probative value, and an affidavit filed through an advocate's clerk was treated as wholly improper. On that basis, the affidavits were rejected as non-compliant and the contempt petition could not proceed until proper affidavits were filed in accordance with the rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the affidavits filed in support of and in reply to the contempt petition complied with the requirements of verification and disclosure mandated by the Supreme Court Rules and the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether the contempt petition could be entertained on the basis of such affidavits.

Analysis: The affidavits were found to be vague and general and did not distinguish facts stated on personal knowledge from those based on information and belief. The source of information was not disclosed where required. The verification was therefore defective under the Supreme Court Rules, which require affidavits to be confined to facts within personal knowledge except where belief is permitted with stated grounds, and to clearly separate personal knowledge from information and belief. The reply affidavit filed through an advocate's clerk was also found wholly improper and inadmissible. Since compliance with the verification rules is essential to the Court's ability to act on affidavit evidence, no reliance could be placed on either affidavit.

Conclusion: The affidavits were rejected as non-compliant, and the contempt petition could not proceed on that basis. The result was against the complainant.

Final Conclusion: The matter was dismissed for want of proper affidavits, with liberty granted to file affidavits in accordance with the rules and have the matter listed thereafter.

Ratio Decidendi: An affidavit used as evidence before the Court must clearly distinguish personal knowledge from information and belief and, where based on information, disclose the source; a non-compliant affidavit has no probative value and may be rejected.

---