PADMABATI DASI Vs. RASIK LAL DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We think in this case no sufficient ground is shown for an order for security. All we have on which to act is an allegation of the appellants lack of means followed by a general averment that the statements are to the best of the deponent's knowledge, information and belief; but what his information and belief are, or on what his belief is grounded, is in no way indicated. Order XIX, Rule 3, however, declares that "affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted, provided that the grounds thereof are stated." That proviso is essential, but no attempt has been made to comply with its terms.

(2.) We desire to impress on those who propose to rely on affidavits that, in future, the provisions of Order XIX, Rule 3, must be strictly observed, and every affidavit should clearly express how much is a statement of the deponent's knowledge and how much is a statement of his belief, and the grounds of belief must be stated with sufficient particularity to enable the Court to judge whether it would be safe to act on the deponent's belief.

(3.) The applicant must pay the costs of this application.