JUDGMENT 1. This is a revision-petition filed by Jethu against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated 24-3-1976, reversing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated 30-8-1974, in a proceeding under Section 145. Cr. P. C. 2. The short facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be stated as under:-Upon being satisfied on an application presented before him by Jethu that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning agricultural land comprised in Khasra No. 40 measuring 55 Bighas and 8 Biswas and situated in village Sadasani Tehsil Jodhpur, exists between Jethu petitioner, hereinafter referred to as party No. 1, and Sothia and others, hereinafter referred to as party No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Jodhpur, passed a preliminary order on 18-6-73 requiring the parties concern in to appear in his court and to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of actual possession over the disputed land and calling upon them to produce documents and adduce evidence by putting in affidavits of such persons as they relied upon in support of their claims. It appears from the record of the lower court that each party claimed itself to be in actual possession of the land in dispute to the exclusion of the other at the date of the preliminary order and produced document and put in their affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses in support of their claims. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered the entire evidence led by the parties and came to a conclusion that Jethu party No. 1 was in continuous exclusive possession of the disputed land at the relevant date, i.e. on 18-6-1973. He, therefore, declared the possession of party No. 1 over the land under controversy at the date of the preliminary order and restrained the non-petitioners, i.e. party No. 2 from causing any interference with such possession until Jethu was evicted therefrom in due course of law. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate further released the land from attachment and directed the Station House Officer, Mahamandir, to hand over its possession to party No. 1 Aggrieved this order, the non-petitioners hied a revision-petition in the' court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The revision-petition was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jodhpur, for disposal in accordance with law. The revision-petition was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jodhpur, for disposal in accordance with law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to a different conclusion upon evidence adduced in the case and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and declared the possession of the non-petitioners over the subject of dispute at the date of the preliminary order. As against this Judgment, Jethu party No. 1 has come-up in revision to this Court. 4. The revision-petition was admitted by this Court and notices were issued to the non-petitioners. The non-petitioners, however did not put in their appearance in this court despite due service of notices on them. Hence I heard Mr. R. P. Vyas and Mr. R. N. Bishnoi, appearing on behalf of Jethu, Party No. 1 and persued the record of the lower court. The main contention put forward before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the affidavits of some of the witnesses filed by the parties in this case do not conform to the requirements of O.X. IX R3. CPC and so final order could not legally fie passed on such defective affidavits. It was, therefore argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this case may be the petitioner that this case may be remanded to the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, for fresh decision on merits after allowing the parties and opportunity to remove the defects in the verifications of some of the affidavits of their witnesses and to put in fresh duly verified affidavits. In support of their above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon several authorities of this Court, namely, Bhair Gir. v. Hanuman Prasad, 1968 RLW 361 , Pritam Singh v. Ranjit Singh, 1971 RLW 330 Gopal v. Man Mohan, 1974 WLN (UC) 131 and Manjit Kaur v. Gurnek Singh, 1974 WLN 459 . Wherein it has been repeatedly held that if an affidavit is not properly verified and does not conform to the requirements of O.XIX R. C. P. C. it cannot form the basis of a final order in a proceeding under Section 145, CR. P. C. 5. I have considered the above contentions. Upon perusal of the lower court's record it is evident that the affidavits of the witnesses of Party No. 1 namely, Har Lal, Birdha, Allahdin and Ahmed contain defective verifications. P. C. 5. I have considered the above contentions. Upon perusal of the lower court's record it is evident that the affidavits of the witnesses of Party No. 1 namely, Har Lal, Birdha, Allahdin and Ahmed contain defective verifications. Likewise, the affidavits of Soothia, Party No. 2, and his witnesses namely, Dhulchand, Bhagchand and Tulcha do not conform to the requirements of Order XIX. R. 3. C. P. C. and are not properly verified. The averments made in the affidavits of Harlal, Birdha and Ahmed are not based on personal knowledge or information of the deponents. In the verifications made in these affidavits, it has been merely mentioned that the averments are made correctly and that nothing untrue has been stated, in the affidavit of Allahadin the deponent did not state which portion of it was true to his knowledge and which was true to his belief or information. The grounds for entertaining such belief also were not given, nor were the sources of information disclosed. Similarly the averments made in the affidavits of Soothia, Dhulchand, Bhagchand and Tulcha were not based on their personal knowledge or belief or information. The deponents thereto merely stated that no untrue facts were stated in the affidavits and that nothing was concealed and that the averments made therein were correct. It appears that an attempt was subsequently made to remove the defects in the verification of the affidavits of soothia and Tulcha by making certain material over-writings but it cannot be easily ascertained when these over-writings were made in the said verifications. In view of the defective verifications, I think it just and proper to send the case back to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, for fresh decision on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties to remove the defects in the verifications of the affidavits of their witnesses, because unless the affidavits are verified in conformity with Order XIX R. 3 CPS they cannot form basis for a final order under S. 145, Cr. P.C. 6. Consequently, the revision-petition is accepted, the impugned orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, on 30-8-1974 and the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, on 24-3-1976, are set aside and the case is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, for fresh decision on merits after allowing the parties and opportunity to put in duly verified affidavits in the light of the observations made above. As the case has been remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, the land shall remain under attachment till final order is passed by him. *******