BHAGWATI PRASAD SINGHAL Vs. M.P. HIGH COUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L . Petitioner in person.

(2.) PETITIONER has appeared in person and has placed before us the relevant statutory provisions to assail the validity of Annexure P -2 (1).

(3.) PETITIONER 's submission is that the provisions afore -extracted are ultra vires the Rules framed by this Court under section 139 C.P.C. which are called "Commissioner of Oath's Rules, 1976", He has relied on Rules 2 (b), 5 and 34 of the said Rules. According to Rule 5 the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Oaths is meant to be used for verifying affidavits to be used in "Courts" and the word "Court" is defined under section 2 (b) to mean" only Civil Court under superintendence of the High Court", Rule 34 is indeed a "saving" clause. It saves expressly the power of the High Court to make other provisions in respect of the same subject matter and it says that "These Rules shall apply to the affidavits to be filed in Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court and shall not in any way effect the M. P. High Court Rules in Chapter III of M.P. High Court Rules, 1957". In our view this clause clinches the issue decisively.