Judgment S. S. Hasan, J. 1. This is an application by the second party against a final order passed by Shri S. K. Chakarwarty, Executive Magistrate Hajipur in case No. MI-168/70/ Tr. No.32/77/tr-11/78 in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The 1st party has been declared to be in possession of the disputed land. 2. This case has to be remitted back for re-affirming the affidavits in view of the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that out of the 33 affidavits filed by him, 32 have been rejected because they were not sworn in accordance with the requirement of Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil procedure. Similarly, 5 affidavits of the 1st party have also been rejected. It is submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision in Smt. Radha Devi V/s. Mani pd. Singh ana others, ( 1978 BBCJ 626 ), the learned Magistrate should have allowed the parties to re-affirm the affidavits in accordance with law. As there is substance in the aforesaid submission it is not necessary for me to state the facts of the case and the claim of the parties. 3. At page 23 of the certified copy of the order, the learned Magistrate has stated that out of the 33 affidavits filed on behalf of the second party only one affidavit of the deponents, namely, Yaddu Rai is valid and legal as provided under Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and other affidavits of the second party are illegal and invalid as they are not within the purview of the provisions as provided under Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil procedure and so also on perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of both the parties, it is clear that one affidavit of the 2nd party cannot prove actual possession of the second party on the disputed lands. This indicates that the affidavits of the second party which may have a vital bearing on the question involved in this dispute has been ignored. This indicates that the affidavits of the second party which may have a vital bearing on the question involved in this dispute has been ignored. In the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court, it has been held in paragraph 14 as follows :- "now remains a small ancillary question to be answered as to whether affidavits which were affirmed before the Executive Magistrate could be admissible in evidence for deciding the controversy between the parties, when the matter goes back. This question is now settled beyond controversy by the Supreme Court in Chhotan prasad Singh and others V/s. Hari Dushadh and others 1977 BBCJ 46), where it was held that affidavits sworn before a Magistrate not in seisin of the proceeding were no legal evidence. In the view that i have taken, the Executive Magistrate could not legally adminster oaths and affirmations to the persons who sworn affidavits as it is only those Courts and persons, having by law or the consent of the parties, the authority to receive evidence, who are authorised to administer oaths and affirmations, or if they are otherwise acting in discharge of the duties or powers imposed or conferred upon them. Such affidavits which were affirmed before the Executive Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, and thus not authorised to administer oaths, could not be admissible in evidence in this case for deciding the controversy between the parties. I will, accordingly allow the parties to get such affidavits affirmed afresh before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saharsa, to whom the case is being remanded. " 4. This Full Bench decision has considered the Supreme Court decision reported in Chhotan Prasad Singh and ethers V/s. Hari Dusadh and others, 1977 bbcj 46, that has held that an affidavit sworn before a Magistrate not in seisin of the proceeding was not legal evidence. After considering that decision, the full Bench has thought fit to allow re-affirmation of the affidavits in accordance with law. On the analogy of the Full Bench decision, the infirmity caused by non-observance of the provisions of Order Xtx, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure can also be removed by allowing the petitioners, and the opposite-party to reaffirm their affidavits in accordance with law. On the analogy of the Full Bench decision, the infirmity caused by non-observance of the provisions of Order Xtx, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure can also be removed by allowing the petitioners, and the opposite-party to reaffirm their affidavits in accordance with law. The case, therefore, is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur or any other Magistrate possessing 1st Class power to dispose of this matter after allowing the parties to re-affirm their affidavits in accordance with law. The parties must re-affirm the affidavits within one month of the receipt of the record from this Court which should be sent down forthwith and the Magistrate should dispose of the proceeding on the material available on the record, except to the extent of re-affirming the affidavits, within two months from the receipt of the records from this court. 5. In the result the impugned order is setaside and the application is allowed. Application allowed.