Order By the impugned order the petitioners, plaintiffs in the court below, have been directed to verify the pleadings. The plaint has been verified by plaintiff-petitioner no. 1 Shailendra Singh alias Shivji Singh. He claims to be the power of attorney holder on behalf of the remaining plaintiff-petitioner. There is a dispute as to the genuineness or validity of the power of attorney. 2. The only point for consideration is whether the Court can insist on verification of the pleadings by all the parties. Mr. Basisth Narain Mishra, learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party submits that Order VI Rule 15(1) CPC empowers the Court to satisfy itself as to the competence of the person who has verified the pleadings. The submission is wholly misconceived. Order VI Rule 15(1) of the Code runs 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 person proved to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with the facts of the case." The language of the Rule is plain and simple. It unambiguously lays down that the pleadings shall be verified by the party (where it is on behalf of the sale party) or by one of the parties where it is on behalf of more than one party). The last clause, upon which emphasis was laid by the counsel for the opposite party, providing for satisfaction of the court, contemplates a situation where pleadings have been verified by 'some other person' than the party himself. In such a situation, it is open to the Court to call upon such person to satisfy it that he is acquainted with the facts of the case. No such satisfaction is required to be recorded if the pleadings have been verified by the party or by one of the parties himself. 3. Mr. Mishra relied on AIR 1958 Calcutta 104. In that case, it appears, the Court had gone into the merit of the case. In the present case the merit of the claim of the parties is yet to be seen. I therefore do not think that the ratio of the aforesaid decision can be of any help to the opposite party. 4. In that case, it appears, the Court had gone into the merit of the case. In the present case the merit of the claim of the parties is yet to be seen. I therefore do not think that the ratio of the aforesaid decision can be of any help to the opposite party. 4. Before I conclude, I would like to make it clear that the question as to whether the power of attorney in question, in favour of plaintiff-petitioner no. 1, is genuine or forged and fabricated is to be decided at the trial of the suit. If any party suggests issues to that effect, such question ought to be gone into and decided. The court below shall take into account this aspect of the matter at the time of framing of the issues and pass appropriate order in that regard. 5. Since the order of the court below asking all the plaintiff-petitioners to sign the pleadings/plaint is contrary to the provision of Order VI Rule 15(1) of the Code, the same can not be sustained, which is accordingly set aside. This Civil Revision is allowed.