JUDGMENT : 1. There is a witness in a contested Testamentary Proceedings in the witness box. A further examination in chief of sorts has been conducted by Ms. Gonsalves, to whom I have granted considerable latitude in putting questions since the witness (the Plaintiff herself) is clearly not able to speak English. 2. The Plaintiff claims to have signed an evidence Affidavit dated 28th April 2016 in compliance with Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. She has signed in English. I have myself asked her (as part of the trial) whether or not she speaks English. She says does not. She can obviously understand a fair amount but does not speak it. She has confirmed that she knows the contents of this Affidavit, that they were explained to her, translated for her into Marathi, a language that she does understand, and that this explanation and translation was by Ms. Gonsalves herself. 3. Unfortunately, and this is not uncommon, there is absolutely no endorsement of this anywhere on the Affidavit nor has the notary, one Mr. N.R. Gupta, supposedly a Notary of the Government of India, bothered to make this endorsement on the Affidavit. 4. In our Court, looking to the convenience of the litigants, we have provided that they may affirm Affidavits before notaries. Previously, all Affidavits for use in court proceedings had to be affirmed before an officer of the Court. What was meant to be a convenience is now being abused. Elementary precautions are thrown to the winds. Day in and day out, I have improper affirmations — those who should swear and not affirm are made to affirm. Where translations and explanations are clearly necessary, there is almost never any endorsement to that effect. Notaries of descriptions do not care to ensure that the deponent has been explained and understood the Affidavit. I do not know what they imagine is being ‘notarized’. 5. Even if such notarized affidavits are acceptable at the stage of a Motion or in other, more summary, proceedings, in an Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief this kind of affirmation is wholly unacceptable. 6. An Affidavit of Evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC is a very special kind of document. It substitutes for actual testimony in chief, that which ought to be given by a witness from the stand. 6. An Affidavit of Evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC is a very special kind of document. It substitutes for actual testimony in chief, that which ought to be given by a witness from the stand. Testimony is always carefully translated for a witness in a witness box, and the answers are always translated before being recorded. This is why we always have an officer from the Chief Translator’s office present in Court for assistance, where necessary. Not to make the necessary endorsement of translations or endorsement on Evidence Affidavit is, therefore, an extremely serious omission or lapse. It is not a trivalent technicality. In a given case, it might conceivably prejudice the witness completely and it hamper him or her in cross examination. 7. I am not in the least satisfied that the current practice of permitting Evidence Affidavits to be affirmed before the Notary should be continued. I believe that such improper affirmations are seriously impeaching the integrity of the trial record and might vitiate an entire trial. The notaries in question are either inexperienced or unconcerned about these consequences. A Court, however, has to be vigilant and mindful of the consequences to the trial and to the witnesses themselves. 8. For these reasons, in all matters where Evidence Affidavits are to be filed here after in this Court, such Affidavits must, in my view, necessarily be affirmed in the Court Registry before an officer of the Court alone. They should not be notarized. Where a witness is unable to come to Court, arrangements must be made for an Associate of this Court to go to the witness’s residence for the necessary affirmation. No notary should be permitted to notarize an Evidence Affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. Every such Affidavit should bear at its head a statement that it is an Affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 9. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Prothonotary and Senior Master (who has very kindly attended Court at my request while this order is being dictated) as also the Registrar General for obtaining the necessary directions on the administrative side to issue a suitable practice note.