LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Jamai Of Law (propra)     15 October 2010

Why affidavit is mandatory for WS but not for Writ. Argu ?

Q1. Why affidavit is mandatory for Written Statement but not mandatory for Written Arguments


Q2. Is it true that from 2005 onwards it was made mandatory for WS?


Q3. What about old suit before 2005?


A old suit which got dragged to due to stay on the main suit since 2003. There was no affidavit submitted alongwith WS.


Also petition in English and WS in regional language.


Petitioner's ld. counsel has raised voice against it and questioning on technicalities i.e.  'essence and facts in Petition' are not denied in WS & also in the say to I. Application (as per O39 R1 &2) or/and some facts are denied in evasive manner and not specific?

English wording in the Petition id obviously complex and used many compound statements? But I believe it was answered appropriately. Ld. counsel is changed for all the co-petitioners


Sworn in Affidavit is yet not submitted alongwith WS


Pls suggest a  way to the Respondent to make a request to Hon.Court to correct the 'allegation of evasive denial' by  an affidavit in English (as sworn in supporting doc to WS )and also a translation of WS into english so it does not amount to amendment of WS also.


Same thing about translation ................about other deposition of a witness/written argument submitted?



 5 Replies

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate)     15 October 2010

It is a verficiation affidavit, why I don't know it is made as mandatory, actually there will be a verification in the written statement.

If suit is filed before 2005 and ws is filed after the amendment then it is necessary to file the verification affidavit along with the ws.  You can request to the court regarding language.

Dr.Chandran Peechulli (Chief Consultants)     17 October 2010

Affidavit is mandatory for written statement:

Lawyer engaged should express all the salient points given by the client in respect of his grievances against the accused as the judge do not allow the client to speak in the court-hall. Vakalatnama signed by the client is taken on blank, to represent by the advocate and the advocate is likely to collude as practically experienced by me, in a land grabbing case. CASE STUDY FOLLOWS::


PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL.  thro. rghck.kar@nic.in         For URGENT attention please.

Jagadish Singh Keher,

H.E. The Chief Justice-High Court of Karnataka State,

High Court Buildings,  Opp. to Vidhana Saudha, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka,
High Court Buildings, Bangalore-560 001.

Most Respected Sir,


I have for humble submission the following few lines, for which I am constrained to do so, encroaching your valuable and precious time of your good high office, to please intervene, for a good and just cause, thereby instil justice and fairplay in  courts, so that the sanctity of the courts are maintained.


Subject: “Re-An Ex-serviceman(Senior Citizen)’s hard-earned “Land-grabbed”.

- case unreasonably dragged in courts with administrative deficiencies of liberal adjournments and aggrieved shunted between Chennai and Bangalore. In the process, the innocent only suffers. Land- grabbing case of a senior citizen & ex-serviceman, in Bangalore City Civil Court i.e. O.S.365/2004 & R.A.117/2009. Fast Track Court 2. There is no sprinkle of truth being seen, but for falsifying the truth, due to money and muscle power, to knock off my property.


Falsifying the truth by all means for gain, engaging specialised mentoring criminal- lawyers, for criminals to be tutored, availing the loop-holes, to suit the legal- process, “bringing injustice to the innocent common- litigant”, throws away the sanctity of the courts, from the minds of the common people. Therefore, it is high-time, the honourable court administration, realises this for an early corrective-action. Justice should come to the common man irrespective of whether; it is from the Lower or Higher or Supreme Court.                    Dr. Chandran Peechulli. Marine Waves.                               

                                                                                                                                                                               The media shouldn't be a spectator to the true happenings of crime and injustice nor play the role of a messenger in reporting without verifying the real facts. –                                          Dr. Chandran Peechulli. Marine Waves

                                                                                                                                                                    Common-man fails to get justice, because of inefficiency or corruption of prosecuting agencies. “Always aim at complete harmony of thought, word and deed by purifying one's thoughts and everything will go well.                                                                   

                                                                                                         Sai. R. Venkatakrishnan. Marine Waves.


I am a hard-working honest ex-serviceman, with national solidarity, whose hard-earned land grabbed and being totally harassed and humiliated to give-up, while fighting-out for justice, in Bangalore City Civil Courts, Fast Track 2, incurring since 2004, further unnecessary money, time and efforts in the old age of 64 years, it is like de-moralising the loyal citizen like me, who once came forward to sacrifice my life, to defend the nation from external threats. Now put in a state of severe mental stress/agony, for no fault of mine.


Self, an aggrieved ex-serviceman had approached various civil authorities in administration, law and order authorities, inclusive of the ADC to His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka State, who responded to the Police authorities (Ref: The Principal Secretary to Governor, Raj Bhavan, Bangalore to the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore District(Rural) vide Ltr.Ref:GS930/D/2004 dated 11th May 2004, to do the needful and help, but all of vain. Shri. Rabindranath Tagore IPS, the then IGP, Bangalore(Rural), advised the appellant (ex.serviceman) to seek the court of law for justice and alas the assistance sought of Karnataka Legal aid Services and thus the suit was filed on 06.04.2004 with great difficulties, as the appellant had to be shunted to Chennai to collect all the original documents and submit to the court for suit acceptance, which was mandatory, resulting in further time, money and his efforts. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed counter suit O.S. 341/2004, against their elder brothers Thammayanna and Eranna, who had executed the sale by the 1983 G.P.A., Affidavit  and received the Sales consideration, more importantly unfairly impleading the Appellant as Defendant No.3, for Partition of Sy.No.11/2, while the other flat owners  twenty-eight (28) of them were left out, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), but to harass and humiliate me, to make me fed-up and give- up. "Chief Justice of US Supreme Court John Marshall had once said: "Power of Judiciary lies not in deciding cases, nor in imposing sentences nor in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, faith and confidence of the common man". 


India though densely populated and though there could be cut-throat competition within the legal profession, these days the wrong trend, is  to look for short-cuts, make fast money unlike the olden days, while no receipts given for fees, to poor litigants by advocates. Advocates therefore collude, betray and harm their clients as well, clients put in a state of confusion, as to which Advocate to be approached, for sincere professional services, to know of the loyalty-rating, since well read and travelled person also suffers, if so, what about the common man? The same aggrieved ex-serviceman had very bad experience in attending courts, shunting between Chennai and Bangalore after incurring around Rs.50,000 with a senior advocate who colluded with the opposite party and later was constrained, to changeover for economy, back to the honest legal-aid advocate, Sri. Revanna Siddappa, though with shorter experience for his age, not bold to express, who started off initially the case, and now resting with the almighty god if exists, and your kind help for justice, using your good and high office.


There is no sprinkle of truth by the respondents, who had purposefully concealed the name of Eraih, father of Eranna and Kempiah, this suppression of facts need to have been seriously viewed by the honourable court, orelse it causes grave concern to the aggrieved appellant and their family members. It is an admitted fact that one signatory of the three, in the irrevocable G.P.A., by name Krishnappa son of late Eranna and the other two signatories Thamayanna and Eranna sons of Kempiah were the bonafide vendors of the suit scheduled property, who formed the layout, sold and received the entire sales consideration of the 30 sites and the possession was delivered by the said karthas of the family, for the benefits of the said family members. The Respondents/Defendants, were therefore also beneficiaries during 1983-84, as such the respondents have delivered the possession by way of G.P.A., Affidavit and receipt of the Sales consideration. The Appellant is in possession till the year 2000 by way of G.P.A from 1983 and thereafter from 2000 by way of Sale Deed. The possession of the suit scheduled property is in continuous possession without any interruption till the illegal trespass and illegal occupation by respondents by pulling out the stone pillars installed and connected with barbed wires fencing all the sides of site 8 and 9. The Respondents had denied all this with an evil intention to knock off the property, since the appellant was residing at Chennai, rest of the site owners being local residents were not disturbed nor made a party, in the suit scheduled property. Further, delay tactics applied by adjournments, and involving me alone in the partition suit(O.S.341/04), thus all harassment and humiliation meted out by the appellant only. Justice informs only the counsel can talk, appellant has no say.


It is an error to hold that there was a temporary injunction against the Appellant /plaintiff regarding the possession of suit scheduled property during the pendency of OS.365/2004, while not considering the ex-serviceman’s hard-earned land, which was encroached, site boundary fencing pulled out forcibly and illegally taken possession. Despite “status quo” announced in the court hall, the respondents went ahead finishing and modifying the  katcha shed when appellant said unfit for human living, since no ventilation itself except an unfinished door, who then fabricated the revenue records, appears taken the electricity and telephone connection, during the pendancy of the case, adding to further crimes. Please view photographs taken and submitted in the court-hall, during the initial stages, which would be self-explanatory as the proof of evidence. However, owing to their high-handedness by money and muscle-power they continued giving different versions, fabricated and frivolous statements, altering land records by cheating and misappropriation, with specialised advocates to falsify the truth. The real owner (aggrieved litigant) only knows, as to how his sentiments are hurt adding to expenditure to meet court hearings, efforts and further incurrence of money, since 2004. Lacks systematic enquiry and evaluation of evidence.


It is most humbly requested,  to please use your good high office to give me justice so that my land is officially returned to me, thereby the culprits are severely punished orelse it is like encouraging the criminals to grow in society seeking easy and fast money.  With respectful regards.


Yours respectfully,



P. K. Chandran,    * sent by postal-mail as well.

Complainant and owner of land.

  1. Submitted copy of written argument.
  2. Relevant media news of D.G. of Armed Forces,New Delhi.
  3. Set of photographs-taken when Tavarekare Police ASI., stopped the construction work and drove them away.

Address: “Kaustubha”  B1/2, No.12th Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090.

Phone: 098400-84216,  e-mail: pkc484@yahoo.com

P.S.  PLEASE HELP! HELP!  EXPRESSING ALLEGATIONS – JUDGEMENT OF BIAS, since "Instead of the accused who encroached my fenced land, pulled out the erected stone-pillars connected with barbed wires and built a katcha shed to black-mail me went ahead with a partition suit making me alone as a party leaving aside the other purchasers of the plot,since they were local residents. However, the judgement went in favour of the accused and the appellant appealed under RA117/2008 which is in the higher court.  *AVAILING LEGAL-AID SERVICES. Judge never entertains, voice of the aggrieved litigant. Poor litigant cannot afford expensive lawyer.



Jayesh Bheda (Advocate)     17 October 2010

Affidavit in the pleading, i.e.. in Plaint adn Written statement, was introduced vide 2002 amendment in Code of Civil Procedure. with effect from 01-07-2002. Before that plaint/ws only required to be verified. It is now mandatory to have affidavit below Plaint/ws.

Written argument is just arguments and not the pleadings therefore no affidavit is necessary for written argument.

It is not necessary to respond into the same language/English as of the petition.

Each and every allegation of the plaint is required to dealt./denied seprately but if you once denied a fact , then you dont have to repetatedly deny it if it appears repeatedly in the plaint.

Further, if you have not filed affidavit along with the WS, you can file anytime before court. I do not recall any provision that in the absence of the affidavit in support, the party is adversely effected, infact on raising such objection by other side the court should grant opprtunity to file such affidavit. Therefore, file affidavit immediately despite of the protest/objection of plaitniffs counsel.

You can deal the allegation in WS, and you cannot not deal them by the way of seprate affidavit. However, you can use the provision of subsequent pleadings (Order 8, Rule9) wherein you can file additional written statement with the permission of court.

You dont need to translate deposition/written argument unless they are written in different language than the local languge where the court is functioning.


SACHIN AGARWAL (ADVOCATE)     19 October 2010

I agree with teh view of Mr. Jayesh Bheda.


Kindly with karnataka civil rules of practice, it will help you.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register