B. C. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has preferred this Misc. Civil Application, inter alia, praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the opponents for deliberate and wilful breach of the judgments and orders (i. e. , Orders passed by Gujarat secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad - "tribunal" for brevity hereinafter) annexed at Annex. A colly. and to punish the opponents by sentencing them to imprisonment in exercise of the powers of this Court under Art. 215 of the constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. xxx xxx xxx ( 2 ) BEFORE this Court, the present petition is preferred making grievance that the orders passed by the Tribunal are not complied with. In the application, averments are made which are taken verbatim as pointed out by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Relevant paras read as under :-" (14) It is further respectfully submitted that despite the clear cut orders of the Hon. Education Tribunal in Application No. 57 of 1987 dated 31-7-1989 and again by its another order dated 21-10-1988 below the application Exh. 6 in the said application No. 57 of 1987, the applicant was left with no other alternative but to approach this Honble high Court by way of filing a contempt proceedings against the opponent herein being misc. Civil Application No. 770 of 1990 praying therein to initiate contempt proceedings against the opponents for the deliberate and wilful breach of the judgment, order and directions given by the Hon. Education Tribunal in the above referred application being application No. 57 of 1987. (15) It is humbly submitted that in the aforesaid matter the Hon. Division Bench Coram : Mr. R. A. Mehta and Mr. A. N. Divecha were pleased to pass an order to the following effect :- "rule Returnable on 24th June, 1991. (15) It is humbly submitted that in the aforesaid matter the Hon. Division Bench Coram : Mr. R. A. Mehta and Mr. A. N. Divecha were pleased to pass an order to the following effect :- "rule Returnable on 24th June, 1991. " (16) It is further humbly submitted that since the learned Advocate engaged by the applicant informed the petitioner that the final hearing of the aforesaid contempt application takes at least 5-6 years in the High Court, the applicant having reposed faith in the said Advocate, having given the entire required papers and the professional fees and expenses, went away with the hope that case of the petitioner will be taken care by the said Advocate and whenever the applicant was occasionally, i. e. , once in six months or so, contacting the learned Advocate engaged by the applicant over telephone, she was told that the application is still pending and that the same would take some more time. Similarly, whenever the husband of the applicant who also used to come to Ahmedabad for some other work tried to contact the learned Advocate of the applicant so as to verify the status of the matter, he too was promised that the matter is pending awaiting final hearing and the final hearing would take place as and when the turn of the cases of 1990 comes. The applicant states that as aforesaid the applicants husband also satisfied that the matter must be pending and that the final hearing would take couple of years more and with that satisfaction, the applicant did not make further detailed enquiry. (17) The applicant further humbly submits that in the year 1994, the applicant enquired with the Advocate on the status of the contempt proceedings filed by the applicant since the management is harassing the applicant despite an order in favour of the applicant and the learned Advocate representing the applicant informed that the matter is still pending and the same would be heard in its turn and that the applicant may not have to go on troubling the Advocate. (24) It is further humbly submitted that so far as the above-referred contempt application filed before this Honble High Court is concerned, at every time when the applicant had enquired the learned Advocate, the applicant was given evasive replies and was informed that the same is pending and would be heard for final hearing. (24) It is further humbly submitted that so far as the above-referred contempt application filed before this Honble High Court is concerned, at every time when the applicant had enquired the learned Advocate, the applicant was given evasive replies and was informed that the same is pending and would be heard for final hearing. It is further submitted that the applicant when tried to personally know the status of the Misc. Civil Application to the applicants shock and surprise, the papers of the said application were not at all traceable with the registry of the Honble High court. (25) The applicant further respectfully submits that having lost at every step and stage and having made to undergo the pains and sufferings/agony due to non-compliance of the Honble Education Tribunals order, the school management and on the other hand the application moved before this Honble High Court, though having been assured that the same is awaiting final hearing, was not received, the applicant has lastly engaged the present Advocate. (26) It is further humbly submitted that the applicants present Advocate also tried to lay hand on the original papers of the Honble High Court in the contempt proceedings, however, when the same were not traceable, the applicants Advocate has personally went atleast 25 to 30 times again to each and every department, i. e. , process department, special c. A. deptt. , C. R. A. /second Appeal deptt. , decree deptt. etc. , and despite patiently with the co-operation of the High Court staff, tried to find out the said application, the same has not been found till date, hence it is humbly prayed that the applicant is left with no other alternative, so as to get from the hands of the Honble High Court except by filing the present application and the applicant further undertakes that the applicant would withdraw the proceedings filed earlier as soon as the original papers from the High Court are available. The applicant further submits that since the applicant is a victim of the circumstances, the present application be kindly entertained although on the same subject-matter, the applicant had made an application earlier as aforesaid, since by all efforts the said papers are not traceable and the applicant is not having the office copies of the aforesaid application except the order of the Honble Education Tribunal and some correspondence (all those papers have been later on collected from the learned Advocate who was previously representing the applicant ). The applicant even cannot muster courage to reconstruct afresh the contempt proceedings, since the applicant is not aware as to what were the actual orders passed from time to time and that the applicant is also totally not confident whether whatever papers the applicant is having are the only papers which were part of the proceedings of the application, hence if the applicant were to reconstruct the said application with the permission of this Honble High Court then also there is possibility that the reconstructed paper book may not be the correct set either due to lack of few orders passed by this Honble High Court and or due to lack of some documents. The applicant left with no other alternative, files the present application with the aforesaid undertaking that the applicant would withdraw the previous proceedings as soon as the applicant is able to get original papers of the aforesaid contempt proceedings. " ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Nanavati has vehemently argued before us that the registry of this Court is responsible as the papers were not traceable and, therefore, this petition must be entertained by this Court. He further submitted that the learned advocate who filed petition has taken proper care and has perused necessary record and thereafter has made a statement in the petition that the petitioner tried personally to know the status of Misc. Civil Application, but to the shock and surprise, papers of the said application were not at all traceable with the registry of the Honble High court. The other side is put in dark as nothing is mentioned as to on what date the petitioner made inquiry in the office and come to know that the papers are not traceable. Civil Application, but to the shock and surprise, papers of the said application were not at all traceable with the registry of the Honble High court. The other side is put in dark as nothing is mentioned as to on what date the petitioner made inquiry in the office and come to know that the papers are not traceable. In para 26, the averments are made that the applicants Advocate has personally gone at least 25 to 30 times to each and every department; i. e. , process department, Spl. C. A. department, C. R. A. /2nd Appeal department, Decree department etc. , and with the co-operation of the High Court staff tried to find out said application, but the same has not been found till date. ( 4 ) AN attempt was made to create an impression before us while arguing the matter that the Advocate searched all the departments to know as to where the matter stands, but he could not trace the papers. Therefore, according to the learned advocate, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the papers are misplaced by the office of the High Court and the matter is not being heard by the Court and, therefore, this petition should be heard on merits. As per the High Court Rules, the registers are maintained as provided in Rules. This being Misc. Civil Application, if one would have perused the register maintained by the registry of High Court, for Misc. Civil Applications, one would have come to know that the petition has been disposed of by the Court much earlier. Learned Advocate Mr. Oza submitted that in the petition, the learned Advocate who drafted the petition has cleverly kept mum about inspection of relevant registers. If the application is disposed of, it would not be lying in the department but in the record room where decided/disposed of matters are kept. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Oza appearing for the school management submitted before us that the petitioner has made averments in the petition which are contrary to the record and, therefore, such litigants should not be encouraged by the Court. He further submitted that knowing fully well that the petition has been disposed of, with a view to create sympathy, averments are made in the petition that in the High court, petition was misplaced. He further submitted that knowing fully well that the petition has been disposed of, with a view to create sympathy, averments are made in the petition that in the High court, petition was misplaced. In fact Registers indicate that the petition has been disposed of and, therefore, this petition should not be entertained. He, further submitted that the petition is not filed as per the Gujarat High Court Rules (hereinafter referred as Rules) and Rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and, therefore, the petition must be dismissed. He further submitted that every petition presented before High Court must be on oath and in contempt proceedings, affidavit must be as per Rule 7 (c) which is similar to Rule 26 pertaining to affidavit in Chapter III, Part II of the Rules. He lastly urged that the petition is also barred by law of limitation as contemplated in Sec. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and, therefore, petition is required to be rejected. He further submitted that alternative remedy being available to the petitioner, the petitioner should approach the forum for the recovery of the amount as per the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of G. R. Bhatt v. D. N. Sanghi, reported in 1996 (1) GLR 812 . Mr. Oza further submitted that the petition is required to be rejected as the petition is not affirmed on oath and the affidavit which is on the last page of the petition is separately typed and is not a part of the petition and, therefore, even assuming for the sake of arguments that it is an affidavit, the same should not be accepted. The affidavit is affirmed on 5th October, 1996 at Bhavnagar before Notary Public while the petition is dated 15th January 1997. From the Vakalatnama which is filed in M. C. A. No. 151 of 1997, it also clearly appears that the same has been accepted by the learned Advocate on 16th January 1997 and the petition is presented on 16th january, 1997. ( 6 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that merely because the papers are not traceable in the High Court, the petitioner should not be thrown out of the court and should not be deprived of the remedy which is available. ( 6 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that merely because the papers are not traceable in the High Court, the petitioner should not be thrown out of the court and should not be deprived of the remedy which is available. He further submitted that the registry of the High Court could not trace the papers and could not place the matter before the Court for hearing and that it is not the fault of the petitioner. He submitted that as averred in the petition, the petitioner engaged an advocate and it was for the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in the matter to look after the matter and if the papers are not traceable, no one is to be blamed. ( 7 ) PRIMA facie, the arguments are very attractive. If the papers are not traceable then as per the provisions found in Civil Procedure Code, there can be reconstruction of record. Instead of reconstruction in a given case, if fresh petition is filed, one may not take technical objection of not following the procedure of reconstruction of the record. But in the instant case, Mr. Oza submitted before us that the petitioner and the Advocate who filed the petition and appeared for the petitioner earlier has misled the Court. He submitted that earlier the petition was filed on 16-1-1990. The Court issued notice which was made returnable on 10-8-1990. On 12-4-1991, the Court issued Rule which was made returnable on 24-6-1991. However, he submitted that the matter has been dismissed for non-prosecution by an order dated 23-4-1991 and that is noted in the register of Civil Applications maintained by the Registry of the high Court of Gujarat as per the Rules. Mr. Oza submits this after verifying the Court record and for that purpose registers were also called for before the Court. Register reveals that the petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution by an order dated 23-4-1991. Therefore, the statement made in the petition that the learned Advocate who filed the petition has inquired in all departments cannot be accepted. Ordinarily, the person concerned or the person acquainted with the Court procedure, would see the registers first to find out as to what is the status of the matter. Therefore, the statement made in the petition that the learned Advocate who filed the petition has inquired in all departments cannot be accepted. Ordinarily, the person concerned or the person acquainted with the Court procedure, would see the registers first to find out as to what is the status of the matter. He need not go to other departments and if that register indicates that the papers are transferred to other department and no final entry is made, only then question would arise to go to the other departments. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that even if the matter is dismissed for non-prosecution, then it is not the fault of the petitioner. It is the fault of the lawyer concerned. ( 8 ) THE registry, as referred in the earlier part, is maintaining several registers. One such register is the register showing different stages through which judgments, decrees, orders of the High Court in appeal or application pass through from the date of decision till the date of dispatch of writs to the lower Courts. At Sr. No. 122 of the register for the month of April 1991, M. C. A. 770 of 1990 is referred. It refers the date of decision and receipt of papers by the department, namely, 7-5-1991 and refers to District : Bhavnagar and the name of the learned Judge who disposed of the matter. It also refers outward number and date. It appears that a writ has been forwarded on 13-11-1991 by Outward Entry No. 10264 of 1991. Entry at that outward No. 10264 of 1991 clearly reveals that on 13-11-1991, one packet with respect to M. C. A. No. 770 of 1990 has been forwarded to the Gujarat Secondary education Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The subject-matter was the decision of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad and hence the writ has been forwarded to that Tribunal. ( 9 ) THUS, a tall claim made in the petition by the petitioner and her Advocate who filed the petition that inquiries were made in the High Court and it was not possible to trace the papers or to know the stage of the matter, is nothing but a false statement and the same cannot be accepted in view of the registers maintained by the High Court. Rules framed by the High Court are required to be strictly followed by everyone concerned. Rules framed by the High Court are required to be strictly followed by everyone concerned. By the Rules, duty is cast upon the Advocates and the staff. In the subject- matter whether earlier petition or application is filed or not, and if filed the result of the same and how the second application is competent is required to be stated by the Advocate in case application is filed by an Advocate. From the registers maintained, it is clear that earlier application which was filed has been dismissed and the writ is forwarded to the Tribunal. If, one would have verified the relevant register, would have come to know that the application has been dismissed. In the present case, we are told that the petitioner as well as the Advocate who filed the petition both were aware about the fact that the application has been dismissed for non-prosecution and therefore, the statement made in the petition is a false statement and the Advocate who drafted the petition and the petitioner both are trying to blame the Institute. Respondents will carry an impression that even in the High court, despite the registers being maintained by the High Court, the Advocate of the petitioner who drafted and filed the petition and the petitioner both are making false statement. That impression is quite justified. ( 10 ) IT may be stated at this stage that learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati has filed his appearance in this matter at a later stage. Neither Mr. Nanavati took instructions for drafting the petition nor has he drafted the petition. He fairly stated that he has to proceed with the matter as per the averments made in the petition. After conclusion of hearing, he took instructions and fairly placed on record the relevant material along with affidavit of the petitioner dated 15-1-1998. ( 11 ) MR. Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner taking an objective approach stated before us that from the record, it can safely be inferred that the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on the date as mentioned in the register. Not only that, but the petitioner was also aware of the fact that the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution before filing present application. He has produced before us xerox copies of certain papers along with the affidavit dated 15-1-1998 sworn by the petitioner, viz. Not only that, but the petitioner was also aware of the fact that the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution before filing present application. He has produced before us xerox copies of certain papers along with the affidavit dated 15-1-1998 sworn by the petitioner, viz. , (1) letter addressed to the petitioner purported to have been signed by learned Advocate Mr. Paresh Dave on 8-5-1991; (2) Notes in 38 paras given to the Advocate who filed the petition by the petitioner before filing the present application; (3) Notes (2 pages) indicating that the matter was kept on 22-4-1991 and as process fee was not paid, the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution. (According to the petitioner, the said note is in handwriting of Mr. Milan Joshi, her advocate in M. C. A. 770 of 1997. From the details stated in these papers, it appears that the party was conveyed the order passed by the Court); (4) Letter purported to have been addressed by learned Advocate Shri Hardik Raval stating that the contempt application has been dismissed; For restoration, it was suggested that an application was required to be filed, for which copy of civil application along with Vakalatnama were forwarded as per instruction given by learned Advocate Mr. Milan Joshi, her advocate. She was asked to return the Vakalatnama. That civil application forwarded with letter after affirmation before a Notary Public, was also to be forwarded immediately for further action in the matter. ( 12 ) TEXT of Vakalatnama in the name of Mr. Hardik Chandrakant Raval duly signed by the party is produced before us without filling in the blanks. Contents of all these documents clearly reveals that before filing this petition, the party was aware about the fact that the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution and the Advocate who filed an application was informed about this vide paras 15 to 18 of the note at Annex. II of the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that not only the petitioner, but the learned Advocate who drafted the petition knew very well that the matter is dismissed for non-prosecution, yet has approached this Court by suppressing that fact and by making a false statement to her knowledge that the petition is pending on the date on which the present petition came to be presented. Learned Advocate who drafted the petition without verifying proper registers stated that he verified the records and stated that the application is pending. If the litigants are approaching the Court by suppressing material facts, the Court should not entertain such petition. ( 13 ) WITH regard to the affidavit, the petitioner has sworn the affidavit on 5-10-1996. Title of that affidavit reads as under :- "in THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD district : BHAVNAGAR misc. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. OF 1997 in special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. OF 1997 affidavit reads as under :-"i, Mrs. Vasantbala H. Mehta, the applicant hereinabove, do hereby solemnly affirm and state that what is stated in para 1 to 30 of the Memo of petition in the Misc. Civil application No. of 1996 is true to my knowledge and what is stated therein also contain the legal submissions and para 30 contains prayers and I believe them to be true to the best of my information and belief. Solemnly affirmed on this 5th day of October 1996 at Bhavnagar. "this affidavit is affirmed before a Notary Public at Bhavnagar on 5-10-1996. The petition is typed one and running pages are given at the bottom and it has 20 pages. If the affidavit was also forming part of the petition since it was typed, then because of continuous paging, affirmation would be on page No. 21, but on affidavit, we find no page number and, therefore, it is clear that it was on a separate page. Notary Public has not signed each page of the petition. Notary Public has not put his seal on pages indicating that it is this petition which was affirmed before him. It is the duty of the Notary Public to put his seal and signature on each and every page. If only one page is produced before him, meaning the affidavit page, then there would be signature and stamp etc. , only on that page. Even the affidavit is prepared prior in time than the petition. If the petition is prepared on 15-1-1997 as it emerges from page No. 19 of the petition, affidavit could not have been sworned on 5-10- 1996. Therefore, it is clear that only one page was forwarded to the party for affirming and not the entire petition. Even the affidavit is prepared prior in time than the petition. If the petition is prepared on 15-1-1997 as it emerges from page No. 19 of the petition, affidavit could not have been sworned on 5-10- 1996. Therefore, it is clear that only one page was forwarded to the party for affirming and not the entire petition. ( 14 ) THIS Court, in a reported decision in the case of J. A. Goraswa v. D. I. G. and I. G. Police, Gujarat State , reported in 1995 (2) GLR 1666 , has pointed out as to what should be the contents of the affidavit. The High Court, in exercise of powers as conferred on it under the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has made rules which are known as "contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984" to regulate the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Rule 7 which is very relevant rule, reads as under :-"7 (A) Every petition made under Rules 4 (a), 5 (c) and 5 (d) shall contain - (i) the full name, description and place of residence of the petitioner and of the person charged; (ii) nature of the contempt alleged, and such material facts, including the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt as may be necessary for the proper determination of the case and shall be arranged, in suitable paragraphs consecutively numbered; (iii) if a petition has previously been made by him on the same facts, the petitioner shall give the details of the petition previously made and shall also indicate the result thereof; (iv) the relief sought shall be set out at the end of the petition; (b) every petition shall be signed by the petitioner or his duly authorised agent. NOTE : Where a person signs the petition in a capacity other than his individual capacity, such as public officer, guardian of a minor, partner of a firm, power of attorney holder, director, secretary or principal officer of a Company or Corporation etc. , he shall indicate the capacity in which he signs. (c) The petition shall be supported by affidavit. The deponent shall state what paragraphs or portions of his affidavit he swears or solemnly affirms to from his own knowledge and what paragraphs or portion he swears or solemnly affirms to on his own belief, stating the grounds of such belief. , he shall indicate the capacity in which he signs. (c) The petition shall be supported by affidavit. The deponent shall state what paragraphs or portions of his affidavit he swears or solemnly affirms to from his own knowledge and what paragraphs or portion he swears or solemnly affirms to on his own belief, stating the grounds of such belief. (d) Where the petitioner relies upon documents in his possession or power, he shall file such documents or true copy thereof with the petition and in that case, when called upon by the Court, produce the original documents. (e) Nothing stated in this Rule shall, however, apply to the proceedings arising out of the Contempt covered by Sec. 14 of the Act. "thus, it is very clear that the deponent must state what paragraphs or portions of the affidavit he swears or solemnly affirms to from his own knowledge and what paragraphs or portions he swears or solemnly affirms to on his own belief, stating the grounds for such belief. This is not a mere formality, but strictly it is required to be followed. How the other side would know about the knowledge of the petitioner ? How the Court would decide it ? Rules provide that every contempt petition shall contain details mentioned therein and the deponent shall clearly state what paragraphs or portions of his affidavit he swears or solemnly affirms to from his own knowledge and what paragraphs or portions he solemnly affirms to on his own belief, stating the grounds for such belief. ( 15 ) IN the instant case, deponent has stated ". . . and state that what is stated in para 1 to 30 of the memo of petition in the Misc. Civil Application No. . . . . . . . . . of 1996 is true to my knowledge. . . . . . ". Thus, it is stated that all the paras are true to her knowledge and that too of a petition having no number of 1996. The present petition is of 1997. Affidavit title is of Misc. Civil Application No. . . . . . . . . . of 1996 in Special Civil Application (without number and year) while the title of the present petition is Misc. Civil Application only. Paragraphs of the petition are not referring the facts only, but it refers to facts and submissions. Affidavit title is of Misc. Civil Application No. . . . . . . . . . of 1996 in Special Civil Application (without number and year) while the title of the present petition is Misc. Civil Application only. Paragraphs of the petition are not referring the facts only, but it refers to facts and submissions. Paragraphs contain statements of facts, i. e. , namely pertaining to Court record which are not verified by the petitioner. Certain statements even by reading, one would say that the same are based on information. When a petition is presented before the Court, it must separately and specifically state facts (i) based on personal knowledge, (ii) based on information and (iii) based on belief, and petitioner must give source of information and if based on belief, then grounds of belief. There must be separate paragraphs for each submission which can be dealt with. Such submissions may be based on facts or law. In a writ petition, it is the duty of the learned Advocate to quote relevant provision of law which would enable all concerned to deal with the matter efficiently. The prayer clause should be separate in a paragraph, and final relief and/or interim relief, if prayed, in separate sub-paras. ( 16 ) APEX Court in the case of A. K. K. Nambiar v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1970 SC 652 , emphasising the importance of verification, has observed as under :-"the reasons for verification of affidavits are to enable the Court to find out which facts can be said to be proved on the affidavit evidence of rival parties. Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegations may be true to information received from persons or allegations may be based on records. The importance of verification is to test genuineness and authenticity of allegations and also to make the deponent responsible for allegations. In essence verification is required to enable the Court to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence. In absence of proper verification, affidavits cannot be admitted in evidence. "in case of Shivaji Rao v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav, reported in AIR 1987 SC 294 , in para 38, the Court observed as under :-"our attention was drawn by learned Counsel Dr. In absence of proper verification, affidavits cannot be admitted in evidence. "in case of Shivaji Rao v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav, reported in AIR 1987 SC 294 , in para 38, the Court observed as under :-"our attention was drawn by learned Counsel Dr. Singhvi on the observations of this Court in the Barium Chemicals LIMITED v. The Company Law Board, 1966 (Supp.) scr 311 : ( AIR 1967 SC 295 ), where at page 352 (of SCR) : (at p. 319 of AIR) of the report the Court observed that where evidence was adduced by affidavits, such affidavits might be properly verified either on knowledge or from sources. But the basis of such knowledge or source of information must be clearly stated. This was laid down as early as 1909 by Jenkins, C. J. , and Woodroffe, J. , in Padmabati Dasi v. Rasik Lal Dhar, (1909) ILR 37 Cal. 259, where the Division Bench of the Calcutta high Court observed that the provisions of Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil procedure must be strictly observed; every affidavit should clearly express how much is a statement of the deponents knowledge and how much of the statement was in his belief, and the grounds of belief must be stated with sufficient particularity. This has been followed more or less universally by Courts in matters where reliance is placed on affidavits. This view has been reiterated by this Court in State of Bombay v. Purshottam jog Naik, 1952 SCR 674 : ( AIR 1952 SC 317 ). It is on this principle that Dr. Singhvi urged that the original petition should not have been entertained because of the defective affidavit in this case. Undoubtedly the affidavit and the petition were defective as mentioned hereinbefore. " ( 17 ) IN the proceedings before the Court, ordinarily the Court accepts the sworn statement made in the petition. The Court accepting such statements passes even interim orders. Therefore, it is the duty of the party filing petitions before the Court to make true, correct and accurate statements, stating as to what portion of the petition is true to his personal knowledge and what portion of the petition is true to his information or belief stating the reasons thereof. The Court accepting such statements passes even interim orders. Therefore, it is the duty of the party filing petitions before the Court to make true, correct and accurate statements, stating as to what portion of the petition is true to his personal knowledge and what portion of the petition is true to his information or belief stating the reasons thereof. ( 18 ) THE Apex Court in the case of Smt. Savithramma v. Cecil Noronha , reported in AIR 1988 SC 1987 , has again pointed out requirements of valid and acceptable affidavit. We reproduce the relevant para as under :-"during the hearing we noticed that the affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the affidavit filed in reply to the contempt petition both were not in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules or Order 19, Rule 3 of Code of Civil procedure. Smt. Savithramma the complainant has filed affidavit in support of the contempt petition. In paragraph 2 of her affidavit she stated that the statements contained in the contempt petition were true to the best of her knowledge, belief and information. In paragraph 3 she has further stated that the affidavit had been read over, translated and explained to her and she understood the contents thereof and has further stated that the same were true to her knowledge. The affidavit is clearly vague and general and it does not comply with the requirement of a valid affidavit as laid down in Order XI, Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules. The affidavit is defective as it does not indicate as to what facts were true to her personal knowledge, information and belief. Order XI, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules lays down that evidence in support of an application may be given by affidavit in the Supreme Court. Rule 5 provides that affidavit 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. Rule 13 provides that in the verification of petitions, pleadings or other proceedings statements based on personal knowledge shall be distinguished from statements based on information and belief. In the case of statements based on information the deponent shall disclose the source of his information. Rule 13 provides that in the verification of petitions, pleadings or other proceedings statements based on personal knowledge shall be distinguished from statements based on information and belief. In the case of statements based on information the deponent shall disclose the source of his information. Similar provisions are contained in Order 19, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Affidavit is a mode of placing before the court. A party may prove a fact or facts by means of affidavit before this Court but such affidavit should be in accordance with Order XI, Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme court Rules. The purpose underlying Rules 5 and 13 of Order XI of the Supreme court Rules is to enable the Court to find out as to whether it would be safe to act on such evidence and to enable the Court to know as to what facts are based on the affidavit on the basis of personal knowledge, information and belief as this is relevant for the purpose of appreciating the evidence placed before the Court in the form of affidavit. The importance of verification has to be judged by the purpose for which it is required. It is only on the basis of verification, it is possible to decide the genuineness and authenticity of the allegations and the deponent can be held responsible for the allegations made in the affidavit. In this Court evidence in support of the statements contained in writ petitions, special leave petitions, applications and other miscellaneous matters, is accepted in the form of affidavit filed by the parties concerned. It is, therefore, necessary that the party stating fact must disclose as to what facts are true to his personal knowledge, information or belief. If the statement of facts is based on information the source of information must be disclosed in the affidavit. An affidavit which does not comply with the provisions of Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, has no probative value and it is liable to be rejected. In a matter where allegations of mala fides or disobedience of the Courts order are made against a person or party, it is all the more necessary that the person filing affidavit in this regard must take care to verify the facts stated in the affidavit strictly in accordance with Rules 5 and 13 of Order XI of the supreme Court Rules. " ( 19 ) DESPITE these decisions, in this Court we find that in several petitions vague affidavits are filed and when questions are raised, time is taken and thus valuable time of all concerned is wasted. It is the duty of the Advocate concerned to see that proper affidavit is filed before the Court. Advocate is an officer of the Court. He is there to assist the litigants. He has to see that proper facts are placed before the court and, therefore, it is necessary for him to file a petition after taking detailed instructions from client taking care to divide the petition in paragraphs giving facts and submissions in different paragraphs and facts must be divided in paras or subparas in accordance with events separately based on personal knowledge, information and belief disclosing source of information and grounds of belief. In the instant case, it is clear that it was known to the petitioner as well as the Advocates concerned who filed the present petition that the earlier petition was dismissed for nonprosecution in the year 1991. While filing the petition in the year 1997, though much is stated about investigation of papers, we find that averments made in the petition are contrary to the record which we have demonstrated earlier. ( 20 ) ADVOCATE is an officer of the Court, but at the same time, he is an agent for his client. He acts on behalf of his client. Whatever he does on behalf of his client, that binds the client. Great care is required to be taken while drafting the pleadings. It is at this juncture also detachment and non-identification with cause advanced by the client is to be maintained. If the Advocate was not informed about the disposal of application earlier on the same subject-matter it was his duty to ascertain the facts about the pendency of application by verifying the record - relevant record, but that is not done. Advocates have conflicting duties. First they are the officers of the Court. He has to help his client, but at the same time, he has an overriding duty to the Court, to the standards of profession and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his clients wishes or clients personal interest. Advocates have conflicting duties. First they are the officers of the Court. He has to help his client, but at the same time, he has an overriding duty to the Court, to the standards of profession and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his clients wishes or clients personal interest. He need not withhold any document which may speak against his client; standards of the profession require him to produce. He may invite the displeasure of his client by doing so. Lord Denning, M. R. in Rondel v. W. , reported in 1966 (3) All ER 657, 665 observed :"he has time and again to choose between his duty to his client and his duty to the court. This is a conflict often difficult to resolve : and he should not be under pressure to decide it wrongly. . . . . . When a Barrister (An Advocate) puts his first duty to the Court, he has nothing to fear (bracket added ). "in the words of Lord Denning :"it is a mistake to suppose that he is the mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants. . . He must disregard the most specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the Court. The Code which required a Barrister to do all this is not a Code of law. It is a Code of honour. If he breaks it, he is offending against the rules of profession and is subject to its discipline ( AIR 1987 SC 1550 ). " . ( 21 ) THE Apex Court in case of P. D. Khandekar v. Bar Council, reported in air 1984 SC 110 , observed :"an Advocate stands in loco parentis towards the litigants. Therefore, he is expected to follow norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interest of his client, in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust. Counsels paramount duty is to the client. The client is entitled to receive disinterested, sincere and honest treatment. Nothing should be done by any member of the Legal fraternity which might tend to lessen any degree the confidence of the public in fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. Counsels paramount duty is to the client. The client is entitled to receive disinterested, sincere and honest treatment. Nothing should be done by any member of the Legal fraternity which might tend to lessen any degree the confidence of the public in fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. " ( 22 ) IN the instant case, if one accepts that the petitioner conveyed the information about dismissal of an application and if that is suppressed, the only inference can be drawn is that the Court is misled by suppressing the material facts. Even if it is assumed that no such information was conveyed then, inference must be drawn that a false statement is made about searching of the records of the High court. Petitioner, realising that the record of the High Court reveals that the application was dismissed earlier, has come out with the version, without being about the specific point of time the material was disclosed to the Advocate. ( 23 ) IN view of the decision above, it can be said that this petition is without legal affidavit and, therefore, no reliance can be placed. Material facts are suppressed by the party. We would not like to entertain the petition at the hands of the petitioners who are suppressing material facts from the Court. The petitioner is a lady teacher and has fairly, at a later point of time, stated before us on oath that she was aware about the fact that the application was dismissed for non-prosecution and that was communicated to the lawyer, and as she has tendered an apology, we do not pass any order as to costs in this matter. Apart from that, in view of long delay, no action is called for, for interference. ( 24 ) HENCE, this petition is dismissed for the reasons stated above. Rule is discharged. However, we make it clear that this petition is not disposed of on merits and if petitioner approaches the appropriate forum for execution of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall decide the same in accordance with law. .