Whether the person who is not having first hand information of facts of the case can verify pleadings?

For the purpose of being acquainted with the facts, knowledge can be gained either when a person himself experiences or is involved personally with certain events or knowledge may be acquired or gained through some other means, such as by reading documents, drawing inferences, forming one's own opinion based on discussions with others etc. Additionally, as also provided for in sub-rule (2) of Order VI Rule 15, the verification can be made even by a Power of Attorney holder on the basis of information that is believed to be true and who is therefore acquainted with the facts of a case within the meaning of Order VI Rule 15(1). In our view, it is certainly not a requirement of the law that only persons who are witness to the events described or who have first-hand knowledge of the facts or who are present at a particular location at which the events have occurred, would alone be acquainted with the facts of a case. {Para 40}

41. We also find merit in the submission of Shri Sharan Jagtiani that the only requirement or test to be satisfied before the Court is 'acquaintance' with the facts as per sub-rule (1) of Order VI Rule 15. Therefore, the meaning of 'knowledge' or 'own knowledge' in sub-rule (2), which is one of the basis of a verification, cannot be higher than 'acquaintance'. Sub-rule (2) recognises two ways in which 'acquaintance' can be established but if 'own knowledge' were to be understood as meaning something higher or greater than 'acquaintance' then it would result in an inconsistency between sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2). Accordingly, even the meaning of 'knowledge' must be understood as 'knowledge' resulting in 'acquaintance' with the facts of a case and no higher than that. This view is supported by the judgments that we have considered below.

42. As noted above, sub-rule 2 of Order VI Rule 15 contemplates that a verification may fall within two categories, i.e., (i) on the basis of signatory's own knowledge and (ii) information obtained/received which the signatory believes to be true. Thus, it is clear that the verification of a pleading is not confined only to facts within the personal knowledge of the person verifying the pleading as is sought to be argued by the Defendants. It is open to the signatory to verify the contents on the basis of the information received by him and believed by him to be true. Thus, we are not in agreement with the contentions of the Defendants that the verification ought to be to the signatory's personal knowledge. It would be relevant to reproduce certain paragraphs of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shanti Prasad Jain vs. Union of India (supra) that the Plaintiff has placed reliance upon:

"23. The verification of a pleading is not confined only to facts within the personal knowledge of the person verifying the pleading. On the other hand, it is open to him to verify a pleading upon information received by him and believed by him to be true. It is true that the manner of verification of a pleading as prescribed in r. 15 is by signing the verification clause at the foot of the pleading. But the opening words of cl. (1) of r. 15 contemplate making of a different provision in other Acts as regards the manner of verification. If form No. 3 prescribed by r. 21 is compared with the provisions of cl. (2) of r. 15, of O. VI, it would be apparent that they are worded practically in identical terms as regards the material on the basis of which verification could be made."

43. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the verification of Plaint is required to enable the Court to decide whether it should proceed with the Petition or the Plaint or to weed out cases based on false pleadings. The enquiry that the Court (exercising judicial powers) needs to undergo at this stage is that to examine the allegations made are not made recklessly but are made with due inquiry and with due care and diligence. The requirement in sub-rule (1) is for the party to only be 'acquainted with the facts of the case' and not set out the manner in which the Plaintiff seeks to prove the same.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal No. 551 of 2019 in Notice of Motion No. 528 of 2015 in Suit No. 175 of 2014 

 Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya Vs.  Sheikhah Fadiah Saad Al Abdulla and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.J. Kathawalla and Milind Narendra Jadhav, JJ.

Decided On: 23.03.2022

Print Page

Whether court should entertain objection of defective verification at the stage of second appeal?

 As regards questions pertaining to the defective nature of verification appended to the plaint and the affidavit in support of the plaint and affidavits in evidence not satisfying the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear from the record that objections in that regard were not raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 at any stage. In this context, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is justified in submitting that at worst these were irregularities that could have been cured, if objection in that regard had been raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 at the earliest opportunity. It was correctly submitted that the parties having gone to trial and having led evidence to prove their respective stands, at the second appellate stage, such an objection pertaining to alleged defects in verification and affidavit ought not to be entertained.

36. Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be pressed into service in this situation, which provides that no decree should be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction. In the present case, at worst, the aforesaid alleged defective verification and affidavits can be said to be mere irregularities not affecting the merits and, therefore, only on the basis of such alleged irregularities, it cannot be said at this stage, that the suit filed by the original plaintiff or the evidence led on behalf of the original plaintiff and the appellant could not have been considered by the Courts below. Hence, the said questions are answered against respondent No. 1 and in favour of the appellant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal (SA) No. 477 of 2015

Decided On: 05.05.2018

Anil Digambar Dhumal  Vs. Sunil and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 292

Print Page