PANNALAL GANGULY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the course of the hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the two affidavits, namely, one bearing tender No. 8389/4 to oppose the writ petition and the other bearing No. 8387/2 which is a counter to the rejoinder filed by the peti-tioner, filed on 25-5-91 on behalf of respon-dents 1, 2 and 5 are to be rejected for lack of proper verification. The writ petition was heard at some length. On 11-6-91, the day to which the hearing of the writ petition was adjourned, Shri G. C. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 5, prayed that he may be allowed to file an application for leave to re-verify the two affidavits. The prayer was allowed. Accordingly, a petition was filed alongwith two proposed supplemen-tary affidavits with an alternative prayer to allow them to file fresh affidavits.

(2.) Paragraph 26 of the affidavit bearing tender No. 8389/4 runs :

(3.) In State of Bombay v. Purushottam, AIR 1952 SC 317, (1952 Cri LJ 1269) it has been held :