Documents attested by notary

A document may be a will , an affidavit , lease deed etc., Has an equeal importance as that of a registered document.
For any document to be registered it is important that the magistrate signs and verifies the document which can not be possible every where in the time of an emergency.
Hence in 2005 came a Land mark judgement supporting this statement that specifies the importance of even a notrified document which is as follows :-
Sajjan Kumar S/O Late Sri Laxmi ... vs Sri C.L. Verma District Inspector ... on 5 October, 2005

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the case was ripped for final disposal. A supplementary rejoinder affidavit sworn before a notary has been filed by the applicant in the proceeding in question, on account of which a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel of opposite party to the effect that an affidavit sworn before a Notary cannot be accepted in proceeding before this Court, therefore, it became necessary to dispose of this question as a preliminary issue first before dealing with the main issue. Thus, a question arises for consideration whether an affidavit sworn before the notary is admissible or can be presented in a proceeding before this Court or not? In this connection learned counsel for opposite party has drawn our attention to the various rules contained in Chapter IV of High Court Rules, which deals with affidavits and Oath Commissioners and submitted that in view of provisions contained in various rules set out in Chapter IV of the High Court Rules, the affidavitssworn before the Oath Commissioners appointed by the Chief Justice of the High court or other persons authorised in this behalf under the aforesaid Chapter alone can be accepted by this court and an affidavit sworn before a Notary cannot be presented/accepted in the proceeding before this court. Contrary' to it learned counsel for the applicant Sri A.K.Gaur, Advocate has submitted that affidavit sworn before a notary is acceptable in proceeding before this court and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon two reported decision of this Court to be referred hereinafter.

6. Thus from bare reading of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that besides the persons appointed as Oath Commissioners of the High Court or district Courts, any notary appointed under Notaries Act 1952 can also administer an oath on affidavit. At this juncture it is necessary to point out that almost in similar situation a learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the question of admissibility of affidavit sworn before notary in a proceeding under U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in case of Kashi Nath Srivastava v. Mrs. G.S.Tiwari and Ors. 1982 A.L.J. 642. In para 6 and 7 of the decision this Court held as under:

7. Under S. 139, as originally enacted affidavitssworn before a notary were not mentioned, though by a recent amendment a specific provision has been made in regard to affidavitssworn before a notary also. I am not impressed by this argument. Under the Notaries Act, vide S. 8(1 )(e), every notary is authorised to verify affidavits. It seems to me that even prior to the recent amendment of S. 139 C.P.C. an affidavitsworn before a notary would have been admissible in a civil Court and the amendment has been made only by way of abundant caution. Normally, no litigant would need to use an affidavit sworn before a notary which is a more expensive affair than an affidavit sworn before an Oath Commissioner appointed by the District Judge but in exceptional circumstances, for instance, as in the present case, where a party is residing outside the State, it may become necessary to swear an affidavit before an Oath Commissioner. The mere fact that S. 139 has now been amended to make an express provision in this behalf does not lead to the necessary inference that an affidavit sworn before a notary would have been inadmissible in a civil Court earlier. Of course, an affidavit sworn before an Oath Commissioner appointed by the District Judge or by the High Court could not be admissible before any executive authority or before a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, but the converse did not follow. The Prescribed Authority, the appellate authority and the District Magistrate exercising powers under U.P.Act XIII of 1972 were not civil Courts and as such, in the absence of any express provision in that behalf, an affidavitsworn before an Oath Commissioner appointed by the District Judge or by the High Court could (not) be admissible. Affidavits sworn before notariescould alone be admissible. It costs more to swear an affidavit before a notary. It seems, therefore, that it was for this reason that express provision was made by the Legislature to the effect that an affidavit to be filed in any proceeding under this Act may be verified by an Oath Commissioner appointed by the District Judge or by the High Court. The provision in S. 34(6) was thus merely an enabling provision and it could not shut out an affidavit sworn before a notary which in any case would have been admissible even without any express provision in that behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to press into service the general principle that where something is required to be done in a certain manner it should be done only in that manner or not at all and all other modes are necessarily forbidden. This principle is applicable primarily in relation to exercise of statutory powers by public authorities and is more rigidly enforced in cases where power is of a drastic nature. But even in regard to exercise of public powers the rule is not of universal application, vide Charles K. Skaria v. Mathew, , (Para 23). No rule of public policy can be imagined for exclusion of affidavits sworn before notaries from proceedings under this Act. On the contrary, public interest and the interest of the litigants clearly require that whenever a litigant finds it more convenient, he presents an affidavitsworn before a notary instead of an affidavitsworn before an Oath Commissioner. Notaries are responsible officers and are readily available all over the country. It would clearly be unfair and oppressive to the litigants to require them to travel long distances to the seat of the Prescribed Authority merely in order to swear an affidavitbefore an Oath Commissioner. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the affidavits sworn at New Delhi before any notary were clearly admissible and need not have been excluded.