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 can permit election petitioner to cure a defect in verification or in affidavit in Election petition?

  It is thus beyond any pale of doubt that the allegations of corrupt practice made in the election petition have to be supported by an affidavit as required in Form 25 and Rule 94-A of the Rules of 1961. The affidavit must clearly indicate which part of the allegations are true to the knowledge of the deponent and which allegations are true to the information of the deponent. Stating the allegations to be true to one’s knowledge and information in the same breath has not been found to be acceptable. At the same time, it is equally well settled that a defect in verification or in the affidavit as filed is a curable defect and an opportunity deserves to be given to an election petitioner to cure the same.

In the light of the aforesaid legal position, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the election petitioners to cure the defects in the affidavits filed under Form 25 by specifying as to which averments in the election petition are true to the knowledge of the election petitioner nos.1 and 2 and which part of the allegations made are true to their information. It is not necessary in this backdrop to probe deeper into the contention of the election petitioners that all allegations made could be true to the personal knowledge and also to the information as believed to be true since that aspect has not been accepted in R. P. Moidutti (supra). On principles analogous to the doctrine of election, an opportunity is given to the election petitioners to cure the defects in the affidavits filed under Form 25 read with Rule 94-A of the Rules of 1961 as stated above. The same be done within a period of fifteen days from today. The adjudication of Exhibits 19, 20 and 26 would be taken up thereafter. {Para 10}

Bombay High Court

JUSTICE A. S. CHANDURKAR

Shri Nana F. Patole & Anr. Vs. Shri Nitin Gadkari & ors.

ELECTION PETITION NO.10/2019

29th October 2021

Citation: 2021 NearLaw (BombayHC Nagpur) Online 1997

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can sent criminal complaint to police U/S 156 of CRPC after putting it for verification?

In view of above stated procedure available under the Code and on considering case of respondent No. 1 of learned Magistrate, to have taken cognizance on 17th August, 2010 on the date of filing of complaint does not stand for any reason as there is nothing to establish that the Magistrate by passing such an endorsement on date of presentation of complaint has examined the complainant or his witnesses under Section 200 of the Code which is first step in the procedure required to be complied with under Chapter XV of the Code. Thus, question of taking next step under Section 202 of the Code did not arise at all and in fact, it is thus found that the learned Magistrate instead of taking cognizance of the offence has, in the exercise of its discretion sent the complaint for investigation by police under Section 156(3) of the Code. In the circumstances, there are sufficient reasons to hold that endorsement made on complaint, to place it for verification, on the date of its presentation, cannot be an order, taking cognizance of case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 497 and 496 of 2013

Decided On: 26.09.2017

Mohammad Illiyas Mahammad Shafi Vs.  Shaheen Parveen Ziaulmallan Khan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.N. Deshmukh, J.

Print Page

When it can be held that plaint was not signed and verified by duly authorized person?

The present suit is filed by the State of Haryana and on the title of the suit it has been mentioned "State of Haryana through Director Industries, Haryana", without mentioning the name of the said Director and the plaint shows that one Dhanendra Kumar has signed the plaint and he has given his designation as Director of Industries, State of Haryana below, his signature. The defendant has raised a specific contention in the plaint that the plaint is not signed and verified by a duly authorised person of the plaintiff. On behalf of the plaintiff one Mr. Prem Nath Wadhwa has entered the witness box. He has deposed that he is working as an Assistant in the Industries Department. He identified the signatures of Dhanendra Kumar and he has also deposed that he was Director of Industries of the State of Haryana. But he does not claim in his examination-in-chief that the Government of Haryana had authorised Shri Dhanendra Kumar, the Director of Industries, to file the present suit and to sign the present suit on behalf of the State of Haryana. No government resolution or any document is produced to show that the Director of Industries Shri Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to file the present suit. What this witness is doing is only identifying and proving the signature of Dhanendra Kumar but he nowhere makes a claim that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to sign the plaint on behalf of the State of Haryana. In the cross-examination this witness has deposed as under:

" The plaint and power of attorney were not signed by Dhanendra Kumar in my presence. I did not see any document to say that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised to file this suit and to sign the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff or to engage a counsel on behalf of the plaintiff in the present suit."

If the above admission of the said witness coupled with the fact that he does not make a claim in his examination-in-chief that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to sign and verify the suit and in the absence of production of any documents how that the State of Haryana had authorized the Director of Industries to file the present suit, it is not possible to hold that the plaint has been signed and filed by duly authorised agent of the State of Haryana. Therefore, in these circumstances, Issue No. 1 will have to be answered in the negative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

S. No. 768 of 1980

Decided On: 15.09.1995

State of Haryana Vs.  Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.D. Pandit, J.

Citation: AIR 1996 Delhi 198

Print Page

Whether written statement verified by one defendant is binding on all defendants?

 As per Order 6, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), inter alia, every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader whereas in terms of Rule 15 of Order 6 of CPC, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. Therefore, a written statement which is signed by all the defendants and verified by one of them is binding on all the defendants named therein. Nothing had prevented the defendants to file separate written statements in the said Special suit No. 135/78, if there was no consensus.

Equivalent Citation : 2012 (6)ALLMR 736,2012(6) AIR BOM R324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Second Appeal No. 88/2003

Decided On: 07.09.2012

 Escolastico Mazarello Vs. Stacey Moraes

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
U.V. Bakre, J.

Print Page

Whether court should accept statement of counsel without verification?

 We find it difficult to accept that in a highly contested matter like this the appellant would have instructed her counsel not to press her claim for maintenance. In our view, the High Court ought not to have accepted the statement of the counsel without verification. The impugned order is set aside.

Supreme Court of India

Shalu Ojha vs Prashant Ojha on 18 September, 2014

Bench: J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri

Citation;(2015)2 SCC 99

Print Page

When court should not accept statement of advocate without verification?

  We find it difficult to accept that in a highly contested matter  like
this the appellant would have instructed her counsel not to press her  claim
for maintenance.   In our view, the High Court ought not  to  have  accepted
the statement of the counsel without verification.  The  impugned  order  is
set aside.
NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2070  OF 2014
       (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6220 OF 2014)


Shalu Ojha                Vs      Prashant Ojha                                   

Citation;AIR2015 SC170
Chelameswar, J.

Print Page