seen in the records from the O.A. was filed on 27.12.2016 and was registered on 09.02.2017. The summons was issued on 16.08.2017 to the Defendants. Service could not be completed and hence, the Appellant sought substituted service by way of publication which was done on 23.01.2018, and thereafter, the O.A. was called and the Respondents being absent, were set ex-parte on 25.07.2018. Consequently, when the O.A. was taken up on 16.08.2018, the Ld. Presiding Officer noticed that there is non-compliance with Sec. 19(10-A) & (10-B) which insists that an affidavit should be filed by the Appellant/Applicant verifying all the facts and pleadings together with the documents and documentary evidence annexed with the application are to be produced. The effect of noncompliance of Sub-Sec. (10-A), is stated in Sub-Sec (10-B) which states that if any facts or queries in the application are not verified in the manner provided under sub-section (10-A), the party to the proceedings shall not be allowed to rely on such facts or pleading as evidence or any of the matters set out therein. The noncompliance of sub-section (10-A) does not entail dismissal of the O.A. If on going through the O.A. and verification made therein, it is found sufficient for the Ld. Presiding Officer to enter into a finding, that would be sufficient. The D.R.T. is not supposed to take a pedantic approach while interpreting the Rules and provisions and therefore, I find that the dismissal of the O.A. for noncompliance of sub-sections (10-A) & (10-B) to Section 19 of the RDB Act for not filing an affidavit in support of the evidence together with the documents cannot be justified.
