JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The sole Plaintiff of C.S. No. 375 of 2002 pending before the 1st Addl. Ad hoc Addl. Dist. Judge, FTC, Cuttack has filed this Writ Petition being aggrieved by order dated 4.5.2006 (Annexure-9) passed in the said suit. 2. The suit is one for declaration and mandatory injunction. Defendant No. 6 before the Court below who is opposite party No. 6 in this Writ Petition has filed her written statement in the suit. The Petitioner filed a petition in the suit with a prayer to reject the said written statement on the ground of non-compliance with the provision of Order 6, Rule 15 read with Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said petition has been rejected by the Court below with observation that the irregularity, if any, pointed out by the Plaintiff could be well remedied. The said order was assailed earlier before this Court in WP (C) No. 2337/06 which was disposed of with the following observation of this Court: Considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and after going through the contents of the Writ Petition as well as the impugned order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or manifest error of law in the impugned order in accepting the written filed by Defendant No. 6 which is very much required for the just decision of the matter in issue as well as in the interest of justice. Further more, if the written statement is not accepted it would cause prejudice to Defendant No. 6 and the Petitioner shall in no way be prejudiced if the same is accepted. (Emphasis supplied) In the last paragraph of the order however this Court granted liberty to opposite party No. 6 to remove the defect, if any, in her written statement as would be pointed out by the Court below. 3. It is alleged by the Petitioner that without pointing out the defect and/or directing opposite party No. 6 to remove the same, the Court below proceeded with the suit which should not have been done. Being aggrieved by such action, a further petition was filed by the Petitioner before the Court below which having been rejected by Annexure-9. 4. Mr. It is alleged by the Petitioner that without pointing out the defect and/or directing opposite party No. 6 to remove the same, the Court below proceeded with the suit which should not have been done. Being aggrieved by such action, a further petition was filed by the Petitioner before the Court below which having been rejected by Annexure-9. 4. Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, forcefully submitted that in consonance with Order 6, Rule 15 read with Section 139 CPC every pleading is required to be verified by the party or one of the parties or some other person to the satisfaction of the Court who is acquainted with the facts of the case. In the instant case opposite party No. 6 had not put her signature above the word 'Verificant'. Thus the written statement filed by her was a defective one and therefore could not have been accepted by the Court below. In support of his submission that every pleading needs to be verified, Mr. Rao relied upon several decisions, but then there is no quarrel with regard to the legal proposition. Order 6, Rule 15 CPC is very clear in this respect. But then a defect in the written statement is a curable one and only on the ground that there is some defect in the written statement which can be cured, the written statement itself cannot be thrown out. In other words, if the defect in the written statement is only that it has not been verified, the said defect can be rectified. That apart, Order 6, Rule 15(4) CPC which was introduced by 2002 CPC Amendment stipulates that the person verifying the pleadings shall also firnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings. 5. Admittedly Defendant No. 6 is staying in USA. A copy of the written statement filed by her is Annexure-2 to this Writ Petition. The same clearly reveals that the verificant Kabila Lombard alias Sinha has signed at the bottom of each page. She has also duly sworn an affidavit before a Notary Public in USA. So far as verification is concerned, it appears that she has signed the same, but not at the place immediately above the word 'Verificant', but one line above that word. Thus it is not correct to say that she has not signed the verification at all. She has also duly sworn an affidavit before a Notary Public in USA. So far as verification is concerned, it appears that she has signed the same, but not at the place immediately above the word 'Verificant', but one line above that word. Thus it is not correct to say that she has not signed the verification at all. On the other hand, it appears that she has not signed just above the dotted line meant for signature of the verificant, though she has signed just before the date of verification. Thus it cannot be said that the defect was such that it would make the pleadings inadmissible. In other words, this Court feels that there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of the provision of law. 6. That apart, as has been stated earlier, this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2337 of 2006 clearly observed that it did not find any illegality, irregularity or manifest error of law in the order of the Court below accepting the written statement filed by opposite party No. 6. The said order has attained finality having not been assailed. 7. After going through the written statement, the order Annexure-9 as well as the earlier orders, this Court is satisfied that the written statement filed by opposite party No. 6 is quite in order and is very much necessary for effectual adjudication of the dispute among the parties inter se. Thus the Court below has not committed any error in accepting the written statement in question. The Writ Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed