BERI, C.J.—Khasra No. 115 measuring 53 bighas 1 biswa situate in Murdakiya is the bone of contention between Smt. Anchi widow of Baxiram and Baluram alias Balmukand who claims to be the adopted son of Baxiram, under sec. 145, Criminal P.C. The dispute is regarding half the share of this land. On August 17, 1971 an application was moved under sec. 145, Criminal P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh, by Smt. Anchi complaining that Baluram did not permit her to cultivate her share of the land and there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace. On August 28, 1971 the Station House Officer, Bhinvsar made a report and a preliminary order was drawn on September 16, 1971. The property was attached on that very day and the Tehsildar was appointed as a Receiver. The parties filed their written statements and also affidavits besides documentary evidence. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate by his order dated May 14, 1973 came to the conclusion on the basis of documentary evidence that it was Baluram who was in possession of the property in dispute. He, however, added that this conclusion of his was fortified by affidavits. A revision was taken by Mst. Anchi before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu who examined the affidavits and the documentary evidence and placing great reliance on an admission of Smt. Anchi came to the conclusion that Baluram was in possession of half share which was in dispute of khasra No. 115. Smt. Anchi continues to be dissatisfied and she is before me in revision. 2. Mr. Surolia learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the affidavits in this case both filed by Smt. Anchi and Baluram were not in accordance with law, because the verification as required by O. 19 R. 3 Civil P.C. does not indicate the source of information. He further submits that the affidavits having been considered the judgments of both the Courts are vitiated and sec. 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969 does not cure the defect as the form given in the schedule comes into function after the affidavit has been duly verified as required by O. 19 R. 3 Civil P.C. He placed reliance on a number of cases to which I shall presently refer. 3. Mr. 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969 does not cure the defect as the form given in the schedule comes into function after the affidavit has been duly verified as required by O. 19 R. 3 Civil P.C. He placed reliance on a number of cases to which I shall presently refer. 3. Mr. Bapna, however, submitted that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate clearly said that he wanted to give no importance to the affidavits filed by the parties because the question of possession in the case stood settled by unimpeachable documentary evidence. Therefore, even if the affidavits are ignored then too the possession of Baluram stands proved and there is no miscarriage of justice warranting any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Placing reliance on Bobda vs. Smt. Mangi(l) the learned counsel urged that a Division Bench of this Court also said that even if the affidavits are ignored because of the lacuna in the verification and the conclusion is otherwise supportable remand is not the proper remedy in an old case. He further submitted that civil litigation is already in progress betweeu the parties and the decisions thereof so far have been in favour of Baluram. 4. The affidavit of Smt. Anchi has not been sworn in and the affidavits of Pema Ram and Baluram and presumably the rejoinder affidavit of Smt. Anchi have all been attested by some body whose signatures contain no seal, no designation much less any administration of oath. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that such swearing in of the affidavits, if there was any swearing in, is not in accordance with the requirements of the Oaths Act, 1969 (Act No. 44 of 1969). The schedule to the Oaths Act gives form No. 4 in regard to affidavits and it is time that adequate attention is paid to the drafting of affidavits. 5. An attempt was made by Mr. Bapna learned counsel for the opposite party to say that the defect in the swearing in of the affidavits may be overlooked in view of the provisions of sec. 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969. Mr. Surolia contested the propoisi-tion. Sec. 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969 corresponds to sec. 13 of the Indian Oaths Act of 1873. Sec. 7 reads as under— "7. 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969. Mr. Surolia contested the propoisi-tion. Sec. 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969 corresponds to sec. 13 of the Indian Oaths Act of 1873. Sec. 7 reads as under— "7. Proceedings and evidence not invalidated by omission of oath or irregularity— No commission to take any oath or make any affirmation, no substitution of any one for any other of them, and no irregularity whatever in the administration of any oath or affirmation or in the form in which it is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatever, in or in respect of which such omission, substitution or irregularity took place, or shall affect the obligation of a witness to state the truth." This section obviously says that any omission in the matter of taking oath or making affirmation or in the form thereof or any irregularity therein in the matter of administration of oath shall not be utilised for the purpose of rendering such evidence as inadmissible. This section does not speak in regard to the terms in which the verification has to be made in an affidavit in accordance with R. 49 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, and O. 19 R. 3, Civli P.C. The defect unfortunately in the affidavits that were filed here is in regard not only to the taking of the oath because the learned Magistrate has only said attested". That can possibly be cured in view of the aforesaid section but a combined verification both based on knowledge as well as information derived does not distinguish the source on which the facts as affirmed in the affidavit have been drawn. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party states that if these defects had been pointed out at the earlier stage of the proceedings there would have been no difficulty in correcting them. 1 am inclined to agree with him so far as his submission is concerned because all these discoveries about the defect in the affidavits are usually made by the counsel when they come up in revisional jurisdiction. The question, however, is could the Magistrate rely on such affidavits and decide the question of possession which is hotly contested between the parties ? The form of the verification is defective. The question, however, is could the Magistrate rely on such affidavits and decide the question of possession which is hotly contested between the parties ? The form of the verification is defective. The consistent view of this Court has been to give the parties an opportunity to rectify the error and let the matter be decided on merits. Learned counsel says that in some cases this Court declined to remand the case for the correction of the form of verification. Those cases are governed by their own facts. Here, there is a dispute between a mother and a person who claims to be an adopted son. The usual practice of this Court has been in cases: Manjitkaur vs. Gurneksingh(2)., Pritamsingh vs. Ranjit Singh(3) and Sitaram vs. Gulabkanwar (S.B. Criminal Revision No. 56/74 decided on 29-10-74) to afford an opportunity to the party and I do not wish to depart from the established practice. I know, it will mean lot of trouble and inconvenience to the part-ies but they have to thank themselves for the lack of care bestowed in the drafting of the affidavits in the first instance. 7. I, therefore, accept this revision and reluctantly remand this case to the learned Magistrate who will give both the parties an opportunity to file fresh affidavits but only of the persons whose so called affidavits are already on record, in proper form, and I wish to emphasise that the learned Magistrate would settle this chronic case within three months. I fix 12th March, 1975 for the appearance of the parties before the learned Magistrate.