Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1283 (MP)

Manish Kumar Sahu v. Anish Khan

2017-12-20

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2017
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 1-A/2012 whereby the application filed by the respondent/defendants has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the year 2012 in which written statement was filed on 9.2.2012 and subsequently an application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC was filed by the respondent/defendants on 7.9.2017 wherein it was mentioned that on minute observations of the written statement, the defendants came to know that due to mistake, they could not verify the pleadings in the written statement filed earlier and they sought amendment to the effect that they may be allowed to verify the pleading in the written statement. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the learned Judge of the trial Court by the impugned order despite holding that the aforesaid application has been filed after undue delay and without assigning any reason. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC amendment of pleading is only allowed, whereas in the present case the defendants had sought verification of the pleadings and for that also no sufficient has been assigned. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, it is apparent that the respondent/defendants had filed their written statement in which they could not verify their pleadings. 5. So far as the verification of the pleading is concerned, it is provided under Order 6 rule 15 of CPC, which reads as under : “15. Verification of pleadings.- (1) 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. (2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. (2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. (3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed. (4) The person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings.” 6. Whereas under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC amendment in the pleadings is provided, which reads as under : 17. Amendment of Pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties : Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid two provisions clearly reveal that Order 6 rule 15 of CPC is procedural provision and there is no condition attached to such rule, whereas so far as the amendment in the pleadings is concerned, Order 6 rule 17 of CPC provides a strict construction of the rule itself, which is apparent from the language of the said rule. 8. In the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the verification of the pleadings is a procedural requirement and cannot be dealt with the same rigor as that of amendment in the pleadings. As such no illegality or irregularity error has been committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed having no substance. No cost. Dharmendra Soni for petitioner.