Guidelines of Bombay High court about proper scrutiny of suit by civil judge

 I
deem it appropriate to direct the learned Registrar (Judicial) of
this Court to place a copy of this order before each learned
Principal District Judge in this State so as to bring to the notice
of each Judicial Officer under the respective Judicial district that
a proper scrutiny of the suit shall be performed by the concerned
office of the Courts and in the event of a sketch map being
required to be annexed to the plaints, depending upon the cause
of action in due deference to Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC, the
trial Court shall place such suits in objection category and shall
not proceed with the said suits, until there is a proper

compliance of Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC to avoid further
complications as are visible in the judgments cited in this
proceeding.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2018

DATTATRAYA KASHINATH MANDEKAR Vs CHANGDEO DAGDU KHULE AND OTHERS

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: February 15 2018
Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 584

Print Page

Whether court can permit rectification of affidavit filed along with plaint?

To urge that suit does not contain statement and declaration as required by Order 37, and to support the argument of misjoinder, Defendant No. 1 has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at Mafatlal Finance Limited Mumbai v. Express Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 64. To point out that the affidavit in support of plaint is defective, reliance is being placed upon the judgment reported at Baldev Singh v. Shinder Pal Singh and Anr. MANU/SC/4670/2006 : (2007) 1 SCC 341. Plaintiff has urged that these defects are curable and reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Khemchand and Ors. v. State and Ors. in F.A.O. No. 24143/2005 decided on 17.05.2010 by the learned Single Judge. Decision in case of Kailash Singh v. Hiralal Dey of Gauhati High Court (learned Single Judge) decided on 30.03.1993 and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vidyawati Gupta and Ors. v. Bhakti Hari Nayak and Ors. dated 03.02.2006 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that amendment to Order VI Rule 15 being procedural in nature, is directory and noncompliance with it does not automatically render the plaint nonest are also pressed into service.. View of Calcutta High Court to the contrary was therefore, set aside by the Apex Court. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh v. Shinder Pal Singh and Anr. 14 (supra) reveals that a factual averment made cannot be both, true to the knowledge and belief of deponent. When the plaint as filed is perused, in this respect, after prayer clause it is directly supported by affirmation as required by Order VI Rule 15[4] of Code of Civil Procedure. Between prayer clause and this affirmation, verification as contemplated by Order VI Rule 15[c] is missing. During arguments it became clear that the representative for Plaintiff did not understand this position. But, then the affirmation filed is only with intention to support the statement of facts made in plaint. The affirmation does not specify separately, the facts true to personal knowledge of the deponent and true to his belief. But these defects are only procedural in nature and Plaintiff needs to be given an opportunity to rectify it. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to give Plaintiff before it, necessary reasonable opportunity to rectify these defects.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition Nos. 5364 and 5664 of 2010

Decided On: 05.01.2011

 Bhushan Steel Limited, 

Vs.

 Mrs. Varsha A. Maheshwari, 

Coram:

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

Citation: 2011(2) MHLJ462

Print Page

Whether curing of defect in plaint would be effective from date of lodging of suit?

 In this case also the defect is in regard to signing and verification of the plaint. The same can be cured. The curing of the defect in the plaint would be effective as from the date of the lodging of the suit, i.e., 27.4.2009.

Bombay High Court

Meera Housing Pvt. Ltd vs Khatau Makanji And Company Pvt. ... on 10 October, 2014

Bench: K.R. Sriram

Citation;2015(3) ALLMR739

Print Page