Judgment N.L.Untwalia, J. 1. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) reads as follows: "Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other per-son proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case". This Sub-rule has been substituted by new Sub-rule (1) by the Patna High Court Amendment affective from 27-9-1961. This Sub-rule, as amended by the Patna High Court therefore reads as follows: "Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force the facts stated in every pleading shall be verified by solemn affirmation or on oath of the party or of one of the parties pleading or of some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, before any officer empowered to administer oath under Sec.139 of the Code." 2. The general Rule 1 of Order XXVII of the Code has not been amended by the Patna High Court so far. That Rule reads as follows: "In any suit by or against the Government, the plaint or written statement shall he signed by such person as the Government may by general or special order, appoint in this be-half, and shall be verified by any person whom the Government may so appoint and who is acquainted with the facts of the case" 3. The written statement in Title Suit No. 78 of 1964 pending in the court below was filed on behalf of the State of Bihar defendant No. 1, petitioner No. 1 before me after verifying it in the manner provided in Order XXVII Rule 1 of the Code and not following the procedure provided in the amended Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of Order VI of the Code The learned Munsif by his order dated 12-2-1965 directed the State of Bihar to file an affidavit in support of the written statement in accordance with Order VI Rule 15(1) of the Code, as amended by the Patna High Court. The State has come up to this Court in revision 4. The State has come up to this Court in revision 4. In my opinion, the learned Munsif has committed an error of jurisdiction in giving this direction to the State Sub-rule (1) says "Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force..." The term "any law" would also include the special law or procedure prescribed in Order XXVII Rule 1 This is the special law or procedure for signing and verification of the plaint or written statement filed on behalf of the Government In view of the fact that this procedure has not been amended by the Patna High Court it still holds good and the general procedure introduced by the amendment of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of Order VI of the Code has got to give way to the special procedure prescribed for signing and verification of the plaint or written statement filed OB behalf of the Government in that view of the matter, I hold that the direction of the learned Munsif contained in the order under revision is without jurisdiction. 5. In the result the application is allow ed and the order is set aside As there is no Appearance on behalf of the other side there will be no order for costs.