ORDER By Court – A question has arisen in this writ application as to whether an affidavit which has been sworn before a Notary can be accepted by this Court in view of rule 3 of Chapter III of the Patna High Court Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 2. Chapter III of the Rules contains general provisions regarding applications and affidavits. Rule 3, which is relevant, is as follows :- "3(i) The facts stated in every petition shall be verified either by solemn affirmation or on oath of the petitioner, or by a separate affidavit annexed to the petition the solemn affirmation or oath being made in every case before a Commissioner for Affidavits or other officer appointed for the purpose. (ii) Affidavits may also be filed in support of facts brought to the notice of the Court otherwise than by petition~ referred to in sub-rule (i). The solemn affirmation or oath required for such affidavits shall also be made before the Commissioner for Affidavits or other officer appointed for the purpose." In view of the aforesaid rule, the facts stated in every petition are to be verified by solemn affirmation or on oath being made before the 'Commissioner for Affidavits or other officer appointed for the purpose. According to the petitioners, a Notary shall be deemed to be an officer appointed for the purpose. The office of a Notary Public had its origin in the civil institutions in ancient Rome. Subsequently, the Notaries found their way in England and English Notaries have exercised the right to administer oath and take affidavits. However, in India a statute has been framed known as the Notaries Act, 1952. 'Notary' has been defined under section 2 of the Act, to mean a person appointed as such under chat Act. Section 3 of the Act, vests power in the Central Government and the respective State Governments to appoint as Notaries any legal practitioner or other person who possesses such qualifications which may be prescribed. The functions of such Notaries are prescribed in section 8 of the Act, which includes administering oath and taking affidavit from any person. In view of the aforesaid enactment, it cannot be disputed that Notaries who have been appointed under the provisions of the Act, can administer oath or take affidavit from persons concerned. 3. On behalf of the petitioner. The functions of such Notaries are prescribed in section 8 of the Act, which includes administering oath and taking affidavit from any person. In view of the aforesaid enactment, it cannot be disputed that Notaries who have been appointed under the provisions of the Act, can administer oath or take affidavit from persons concerned. 3. On behalf of the petitioner. it was submitted that section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been amended by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 and now a new clause (aa) bas been added to that section. Now section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows: "139. Oath on affidavit by whom to be administered. In the case of any affidavit under this Code – (a) any Court or Magistrate, or (aa) any notary appointed under the Notaries Act. 1952 : or (b) any officer or other person whom a High Court may appoint in this behalf, or (c) any officer appointed by any other Court which the State Government has generally or specially empowered in this behalf, may administer the oath to the deponent:” In view of this amendment, any Notary appoted under the aforesaid Act, may administer oath to the deponent. Same is the position so far as the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned. Sub-section (1) of section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is relevant, is as follows :- “297. Authorities before whom affidavits may be sworn. (1) Affidavits to be used before any Court under this Code may be sworn or affirmed before- (a) any Judge or Magistrate, or (b) any Commissioner of Oaths appointed by a High Court or Court of Session, or (c) any notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (53 of 1952)." Thus, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure permit an affidavit to be sworn before a Notary appointed under the Act. As such, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that this Court should also entertain an application in which affidavit has been sworn before a Notary who shall be deemed to be an “officer appointed for the purpose”. 4. The rules which were framed before coming into force of the Constitution shall now be deemed to have been framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the relevant portion whereof is as follows:- “225. 4. The rules which were framed before coming into force of the Constitution shall now be deemed to have been framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the relevant portion whereof is as follows:- “225. Jurisdiction of existing High Courts Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court,...... ... ............ including any power to make rules, of' Court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.” Article 227 (2) (b) of the Constitution also, vests power in the High Court to make and issue general rules for regulating the practice and proceedings of courts. The only bar which has been prescribed by the aforesaid two Articles of the Constitution is that it shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of any law for the time being in force and shall be subject to the provisions of the Constitution and of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by the Constitution. 5. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that if the expression “other officer appointed for the purpose” used in rule 3 of the Rules is interpreted to mean officer appointed for the purpose by the High Court only, then it shall be inconsistent with the two enactments, Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, referred to above, because they permit affidavits to be sworn even before a Notary appointed under the Act. Learned Additional Advocate General who has appeared at the instance of the Court has rightly pointed out that even if the expression "other officer appointed for the purpose" is interpreted to mean appointed for the purpose by this Court, it shall not be inconsistent either with section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure or with section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two sections aforesaid may permit a Magistrate, a Notary appointed under the Act, or any other officer to administer oath, still this Court can restrict only to the Commissioner of Oaths or any other officer for that purpose appointed by the High Court. The two sections aforesaid may permit a Magistrate, a Notary appointed under the Act, or any other officer to administer oath, still this Court can restrict only to the Commissioner of Oaths or any other officer for that purpose appointed by the High Court. Even in that situation the rule shall not be inconsistent because it will be covered by clauses (b) of section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, it will amount to limiting the types of persons who can administer oath in respect of the affidavits to be filed before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the rules of the Supreme Court in respect of the affidavit. Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 deals with affidavits. Rule 7 of that Order XI is as follows : “7. Affidavits for the purposes of any cause, appeal Or matter before the Court may be sworn before a Notary or any authority mentioned in section 139 of the Code or before the. Registrar of this Court Or before a Commissioner generally or specially authorised in that behalf by the Chief Justice.” It is true that because of the aforesaid rule framed by the Supreme Court an affidavit sworn before a Notary or any' other Authority mentioned in section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure can also be entertained. But, So far as the Rules of this Court, referred to above, are concerned, they arc not similar to the Supreme Court Rules, and, as such, it has to be examined whether under the existing rules it is permissible to entertain an affidavit which has been sworn before Notary. Rule 3 specifically speaks or solemn affirmation or oath being made before a Commissioner for affidavits which means Commissioner for affidavits appointed by this Court. The expressions "other officer appointed for the purpose" mentioned in rule 3 have to he read in context with Commissioner for affidavits appointed by this Court and they, according to us, mean any other officer appointed for the purpose by this Court. We have already pointed out that it is always open to the High Court to frame its own rule subject to only one condition that it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or any other enactment. We have already pointed out that it is always open to the High Court to frame its own rule subject to only one condition that it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or any other enactment. The view which we have taken is also consistent with other rules, like rules 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 of chapter III where reference has been• made to Commissioner for Affidavits only, and not to any other officer. Rule 23 of that Chapter says that no petition or affidavit. shall be read or used in the High Court which does not comply with the provisions of that Chapter. 6 Accordingly, we hold that an affidavit which has been sworn before a Notary cannot be entertained by this Court. The petitioner should file a fresh affidavit sworn before this Court supporting the statements made in the writ application within one month from today. Order accordingly.