Judgment :- 1. But for the fact that there is a long-standing practice, which according to my information is older than myself by about two or three decades, I would not have thought it necessary to write a considered order in this matter. 2. The writ petition is supported by an affidavit, the form of which differs from the affidavits which are usually filed in this Court in support of petitions. It has been the practice to state the prayer of the petitioner in the last paragraph of the affidavit filed in support thereof. That last paragraph will be reproduced in the petition. While affidavits are being signed by the parties, the petitions are signed only by counsel. The Registry used to compare the petition with the last paragraph of the affidavit and verify whether there is any discrepancy between them and d there is one, it will be got rectified. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner struck a new path by not including the prayer in the affidavit. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stops with the grounds on which the relief is sought and the last paragraph reads thus:— “For the reasons aforesaid and those that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honble Court be pleased to grant all the reliefs as prayed for in the Memo. of Writ Petition”. 2. The Registry raised an objection, as it is always accustomed to see affidavits containing the prayers made in the petitions. Learned counsel stood firm in his stand and had the matter posted before Court for orders on Office Note. 3. Learned counsel places reliance on Rule 2 of the Rules framed by this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Rules 1 and 2 read as follows:— “1. An application for a direction, order or writ, including a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto or Prohibition shall be by Original Petition to be entitled “Writ Petition No. of ???” and shall be filed in the office of the Registrar by the petitioner or his duly authorised advocate or attorney. 2. An application for a direction, order or writ, including a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto or Prohibition shall be by Original Petition to be entitled “Writ Petition No. of ???” and shall be filed in the office of the Registrar by the petitioner or his duly authorised advocate or attorney. 2. Every such petition shall set out the provision of law under which it is made, the name and description of the petitioner and the respondent, the nature of the relief sought and shall be accompanied by an affidavit. Setting forth the grounds of the relief sought, the other remedy, if any, available to the petitioner and if not availed of, the reasons therefor. The petition shall be signed by the petitioner or his advocate or attorney”. 4. The Rule merely says that the affidavit accompanying the petition shall set forth the grounds of the relief sought. It does not compel the deponent to include the prayer made in the petition as part of the affidavit. The petition has to be signed by the petitioner or his advocate or attorney. R. 1 is to the effect that an application for issue of a writ shall be by Original Petition. Normally, Original Petitions are to be signed by the parties containing a verification at the end of it. But, R. 2 is specific in that a writ petition need not be signed by the parties always. It may be signed by the party or his counsel. The mandate is only with regard to a signature in the petition, which may be that of the party himself or his counsel. 5. Learned counsel drew my attention to the provisions of O. 19, Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the said Rule, “affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted; provided that the grounds thereof are stated”. Under that Rule also, it is not necessary for the deponent to include the prayer in the affidavit. Of course, by virtue of S. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply to any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under that Rule also, it is not necessary for the deponent to include the prayer in the affidavit. Of course, by virtue of S. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply to any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel referred to O. 6, Rule 3 of the Appellate Side Rules, according to which also an affidavit shall be confined to statements of fact and be divided into numbered paragraphs, each paragraph being confined, as nearly as may be, to a distinct portion of the subject. Learned counsel drove my attention to O. 35, R. 7 of the Supreme Court Rules. In the Supreme Court, the petition has to contain all the facts as well as the prayer. The affidavit is only for the purpose of verification of the facts set out in the petition. 6. The word ‘affidavit’ takes its origin in the Latin word ‘ Affido ’, which literally means “He has stated on faith”. In Websters Third New International Dictionary-Unabridged, ‘affidavit’ is defined as follows:— “a sworn statement in writing made esp. under oath or on affirmation before an authorised magistrate or officer..” 7. Ramanatha Aiyars Law Lexicon defines ‘affidavit’ as follows:— “It is a declaration on oath, reduced to writing, affirmed or sworn to by an affiant before some person who has authority to administer oaths. An affidavit is an oath in writing signed by the party deposing, sworn before and attested by him and who had authority to administer the same. Affidavit is an oath in writing; and to make affidavit of a thing, is to testify it upon oath. An affidavit generally speaking is an oath in writing, sworn before some person who hath authority to administer such oath; and the true place of habitation, and true addition of every person who shall make an affidavit is to be inserted in his affidavits. Affidavits ought to set forth the matter of fact only, which the party intends to prove by his affidavit; and to declare the merits, of the cause, of which the Court is to judge. “Must be in writing. There can be no such thing as an unwritten affidavit. The affidavit is defined to be “a written declaration under oath, made without notice to the adverse party”. “Must be in writing. There can be no such thing as an unwritten affidavit. The affidavit is defined to be “a written declaration under oath, made without notice to the adverse party”. Affidavit, deposition, complaint:— Affidavit, is always made ex parte and without cross-examination and in this it differs from a deposition. “Deposition” is a generic expression, embracing all written evidence verified by oath, and thus includes affidavits, but in legal language, a distinction is maintained in the courts of Law and Chancery, between depositions and affidavits. A deposition is evidence given by a witness under interrogatories, oral or written; and usually written down by an official person, while an affidavit is the mere voluntary act of the party making the oath and may be, and generally is taken without the cognizance of the one against whom it is to be used”. 8. S. 3(3) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is in the following terms:— “affidavit” shall include affirmation and declaration in the case of person by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing”. S. 295 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “When any application is made to any court in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code, and allegations are made therein respecting any public servant, the applicant may give evidence of the facts alleged in the application by affidavit, and the court may, if it thinks fit, order that evidence relating to such facts be so given”. Under S. 297(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “Affidavits shall be confined to, and shall state separately, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such facts as he has reasonable ground to believe to be true, and in the latter case, the deponent shall clearly state the grounds of such belief. 9. Under R. 1 of O. 15 of the Original Side Rules, “in any suit or proceeding evidence may be given by affidavit; but the court may order the attendance for cross-examination of the person making such affidavit”. Under the same Rule, two or more persons may join in an affidavit and each shall depose separately to such facts which are within his personal knowledge and those facts shall be stated in separate paragraphs. Under the same Rule, two or more persons may join in an affidavit and each shall depose separately to such facts which are within his personal knowledge and those facts shall be stated in separate paragraphs. Under Rule 2 of O. 15 of the Original Side Rules, every affidavit shall be drawn up in t he first person and divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, and each paragraph, as nearly as may be, shall be confined to a distinct portion of the subject and it shall also state on whose behalf it is filed. 10. Thus, it is seen that an affidavit is intended only to contain the facts to be used in support of the prayer. There is no Rule requiring the inclusion of the prayer in the affidavit. The longstanding practice in this Court probably arose because the affidavits are signed by the parties and the petitions are signed by counsel. I am only hazarding a guess that it was thought in those days that the party should make the prayer and it could be done only by including the prayer in the affidavit. Whatever may be the reason for this practice, so long as it is not authenticated by any Rule, it is not necessary for any party to adhere to the practice. It is certainly open to a particular party to say that his affidavit would only be in conformity with Rules and he shall not be compelled to do anything which is not required by the Rules. 11. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is in proper form and that there is no necessity to include the prayer in the affidavit is well founded and has to be accepted. 12. Now that the subject of the affidavit has come up for consideration before me, I shall not fail to avail myself of the opportunity to reiterate what I have been expressing repeatedly with reference to affidavits. It must be remembered by the deponent of every affidavit that he is making a statement on oath and the statement shall contain only the facts. It shall not suffer from the defect of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi . It should also be remembered that the person who drafts the affidavit should be very careful and he must see that it is in proper language. It shall not suffer from the defect of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi . It should also be remembered that the person who drafts the affidavit should be very careful and he must see that it is in proper language. The Supreme Court had an occasion to point out in Krishan Chander Nayar v. The Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation And Others ( AIR 1962 SC 602 ) the onerous responsibility on the persons drawing up affidavits. The Supreme Court observed as follows:— “It is manifest, therefore, that the person responsible for drawing up the affidavit, was either negligent or ignorant. Such remissness cannot readily be passed over. Those who are charged with the duty and responsibility of drawing up affidavits to be used in this Court have got to be circumspect and should not make statements and re-emphasize them when there is no basis, in fact, for such statements”. 13. In the result, I over-rule the objection raised by the Registry and direct the Registry to accept the affidavit as it is and number the writ petition, if it is otherwise in order.