AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Jha, J.—This civil revision petition has been filed against an order dated 17th April, 1984.
By the impugned order, the court below rejected the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant on the ground that it was not sworn by the defendant himself.
The matter arises out of the provision u/s 14(4) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'').
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Act as to who will swear an affidavit. In this connection, he refers to Rule 15(1) of Order 6 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the Code'') which runs as follows:
Verification of pleadings.
(1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
* * * *
It is clear that an affidavit can be sworn by some other person who is acquainted with the facts of the case. It is stated that the affidavit filed before the court below disclosed that the person who swore the affidavit was acquainted with the facts of the case. In this circumstance, it is contended that the affidavit filed by a person, acquainted with the facts of the case, should be accepted in accordance with the provision of Order 6, Rule 15 of the Code.
In my opinion, there is sufficient substance in the contention of the learned Counsel of the petitioner. Section 14(4) of the Act requires that the defendant should file an affidavit. It is not mentioned in that section that the affidavit should be sworn by the defendant.
In this view of the matter, the court below erred in law in holding that the affidavit filed by Kapildeo Prasad should not be accepted. I, therefore, direct that the affidavit filed by Kapildeo Prasad be accepted, and the trial should proceed in accordance with law. In my opinion, the court below committed a jurisdictional error.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the order dated 17th April, 1984 is set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs.