YAHIYA KACCHI Vs. KURBAN SHAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 18.7.94 passed in a Case No. 55 -A -98 (7) 88 -89 before the Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur, under section 23 -A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Act). The revision is described to be u/s 115 C. P. C. in the memorandum of Revision though Section 115 C. P. C. is not applicable. Section 23E of the Act itself provides a forum for revision though the powers exercisable by the High Court are in essence the same as are in Section 115 C. P. C.

(2.) THE revision filed by the applicant is barred by 176 days and is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act together with in affidavit of the applicant. The affidavit is not properly drafted, as is required under Chapter III of the Rules of the Court. Rule 12 (1) casts an obligation on the officer administering the oath or receiving the solemn affirmation to set the declarant if he has read the affidavit and understand the contents thereof, and if the latter states that he has not read it, or appeared not fully understand the contents thereof, or appears to be blind, illiterate or ignorant of the language in which it is written, the officer administering the oath shall read and explain in his presence, the affidavit to the declarant in a language which both the declarant and the officer administering the oath understood.

(3.) FURTHER , when an affidavit has been read, translated or explained or herein provided, the officer administering the oath or receiving the solemn affirmation shall certify in writing at the foot of the affidavit that it has been so read, translated or explained in his presence and that the declarant appeared to understand the same at the time of making the affidavit and made his signature or finger -impression in the presence of the officer.