The Gujarat High Court ordered an inquiry into a notary for improperly notarizing affidavits without mandatory para-wise oaths. Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal emphasized the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures, rejecting defective affidavits and warning against casual practices in notarization to uphold system integrity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Gujarat High Court took strict action in a case related to improper notarization of affidavits. The issue arose when a notary verified two affidavits that did not include a proper paragraph-wise oath of affirmation from the deponent, which is a key requirement for such legal documents.
A Bench consisting of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi has ordered an inquiry into how one of the affidavits, dated January 18, was notarized.
The Court directed the Principal District Judge of Surat to investigate the matter. As per the Court’s instructions, the notary must provide an explanation.
“Explanation be called from the said Notary as to how and in what manner the affidavit was notarised by her without there being any parawise oath on the part of the deponent,”
-the Court stated.
The Bench also allowed the appellant’s lawyer to submit fresh affidavits.
The Court asked the Principal District Judge of Surat to submit a detailed report on the findings by the next hearing date.
Meanwhile, the appellant’s lawyer repeatedly pleaded with the Court to reconsider its direction for an inquiry against the notary. He admitted the mistake, apologized, and offered to withdraw the appeal unconditionally.
“Lordship may not issue such directions, I will file a fresh affidavit…I will simply withdraw this Letters Patent Appeal…I am making a humble request with folded hands…This notary will have some difficulty,”
-the lawyer said.
Despite the lawyer’s appeal, the Court stood firm in its decision.
“You cannot ask this from us…Mr. Counsel, we have to sanitise our own system. We cannot run like this. If the person doesn’t know as to how affirmation is to be done, then he is not fit to become a notary…Sorry Mr. counsel, we have already passed an order…We accept your apology but we cannot change our order,”
-Chief Justice Agarwal responded.
The Chief Justice emphasized that this issue was not just about one case but about maintaining the integrity of the legal system.
“It is not about you, it’s not about one case. It is about the system. We cannot run the system like this, and we cannot permit it to run like this,”
-she added.
The case before the Court involved a dispute concerning the execution of a sale deed. The appellant in the case had passed away in 2023 while the appeal was still pending.
The affidavits scrutinized during the hearing were filed to substitute the deceased appellant’s legal heirs as parties in the case and to clarify discrepancies in the appellant’s name mentioned in the death certificate and court documents.
The Court found both affidavits defective because they lacked a para-wise affirmation of their truthfulness by the deponent.
“Mr. Counsel, you filed an affidavit but you don’t swear paragraphs? Swearing of paragraphs is done away (with in) this court? You are filing affidavit in a court of law. Affidavit needs para wise swearing. Who doing this, notary? How these affidavits are being notarised?…We are rejecting this affidavit…This is not acceptable. Every procedure is done away. Normally, generally, casually, we are filing affidavits. And the court should accept it?”
-Chief Justice Agarwal questioned.
Even though the lawyer apologized and sought permission to file fresh affidavits, the Court made its stance clear.
“Why would you tender apology? We are asking you certain questions…These district court notaries, they don’t know the procedure? We will pass an order on the administrative side that we are not going to accept affidavits sworn by notaries if this type of affidavits are coming in the High Court,”
-the Court said.
The Chief Justice highlighted the importance of para-wise oaths in affidavits. Such affirmations hold deponents accountable for their statements and make it possible to initiate legal action if falsehoods are found.
“In case in future, we find that this person (deponent) has made a wrong statement in the court…we can initiate proceedings for perjury against him. That is the purpose of asking you to file an affidavit where each and every paragraph is affirmed, on oath,”
-she explained.
The Court has scheduled the next hearing for February 11.
CASE TITLE:
Arunbhai Chhaganlal Popat and anr v. Bhavin Bharatbhai Patel
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Gujarat High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
