GULAM RASUL Vs. NEKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 24-1-1979 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali, whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the order of attachment passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pali, dated 27-7-1976, was set aside and the case was sent back to pass necessary orders for attachment of the land in dispute after hearing the parties. Both the parties were allowed to submit affidavits.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that Gulam Rasul submitted an application under section 145, Cr. P. C. , and on 27-7-1976, a preliminary order was drawn up and thereafter considering the case one of emergency, order of attachment was passed and Tehsildar, Pali, was appointed as Receiver. Aggrieved against the order of attachment, the opposite party, i. e. , Neku and others, preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Pali, and the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the two affidavits, (1) of Gulam Rasul and (2) of Kedarnath, not being in proper form, set aside the order of attachment and remanded the matter with the aforesaid direction. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Sessions Judge, Pali, Gulam Rasul has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) SECTION 7 of the Act is analogous to section 13 of the Oaths Act, 1873. It would appear from this provision that any omission to take oath or any irregularity in the form of oath or affirmation does not invalidate the proceedings or render any evidence inadmissible. I need not refer to other decisions, which have been cited by Shri Rathor, firstly, because section 7 of the Act has not been considered in any of them and the question involved in them was with regard to the compliance of principle embodied in O. 19 R. 3, C. P. C. , and the question was as to the validity of affidavits when the deponent does not state as to which paras of the affidavit are true to his knowledge and which are true to his belief and in general verification is made that contents of the affidavit are true to his knowledge and belief. The normal rule of evidence is that hearsay evidence is no evidence and it is excluded from consideration. In the verification of the affidavit, if it is not specified as to which paras of the affidavit are true to personal knowledge and which are true to belief, then the whole of the affidavit has to be ignored and no finding or conclusion can be reached on the basis of such an affidavit, so it has been held that such affidavits are bad in the eye of law and are not legal.