JUDGMENT : 1. This Court on 9.7.2019 required the appellant-Ms. Bhawna Anand to file explanation why her two affidavits namely; 25.4.2019 and 7.5.2019 were got attested at Jaipur even though on those two dates, she was present in England. Registry was directed to issue notice to the concerned Oath Commissioner. 2. Registry has issued notice to Shri Rajesh Dhaka, Oath Commissioner. He is present in person today in Court and submits that he attested only one of the affidavits i.e. dated 25.4.2019 and that another affidavit dated 7.5.2019 was attested by Shri R.L. Chaura, a different Oath Commissioner. 3. Registry to issue notice to Shri R.L. Chaura as well. Both the Oath Commissioners shall file their affidavit explaining why they attested the affidavit of a person, who did not sworn the affidavit in their presence. They shall also file an undertaking that in future they shall attest the affidavit only after satisfying about the identity of the person by cross verifying from the I.D. proof and identification made by the concerned Advocate. 4. Registrar General of the High Court in this connection is directed to issue instructions to all the Oath Commissioners that henceforth affidavits shall be attested by them only on verification of the I.D. proof of the deponent as well as identification by the concerned Advocate so as to ensure that affidavit who is swearing before them actually pertains to the person concerned and is not attested in absentia or by impersonation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that affidavit of Ms. Bhawna Anand, the appellant present in person and her counsel Ms. Tabassum Firdause, who put her signature in the column pertaining to identification before the Oath Commissioner has been filed in the registry. Registry is directed to place the same on record. List the matter on 27.8.2019. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court for compliance.