High Court of Delhi

Deccan Edibles Private Limited Vs. S P J Cargo Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024 DHC 4111)

MANU/DE/3530/2024

20.05.2024

Civil

In the absence of verification under Order VI Rule 15A of CPC, the pleadings cannot be relied as evidence

The Petitioner herein/defendant before the Trial Court is aggrieved by an order of the learned Trial Court whereby Petitioner's application before the learned Trial Court under Order VI Rule 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") for striking of paragraph 24 to 38 of the plaint of the Respondent has been dismissed. Consequently, the Respondent has been allowed to rely upon paragraph numbers 24 to 38 of the plaint which according to Petitioner is in violation of Order VI Rule 15A (4) CPC.

The core question which arises for adjudication in the present petition is whether the first filing of the plaint when filed within prescribed limitation period can be considered a valid filing in case it suffers from inherent defects.

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 introduced several amendments to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 concerning commercial disputes, including provisions related to the verification of pleadings for which Order VI Rule 15A CPC was added. Order VI Rule 15A of CPC mandates the verification of pleadings by way of an affidavit. This requirement ensures that the statements made in the pleadings are authenticated and verified under oath in the absence of verification, the pleadings cannot be relied as evidence. If the pleading is amended, the same has to be verified. Failure to comply with the verification requirement can have legal consequences, as the court may reject the pleading or require the party to rectify the defect. This underscores the importance of strict compliance with the verification mandate.

In case, it is found that the filing of fresh suit consists of inherent defects, such filing then has to be held as non-est and when the defects have been found to be formal in nature, it can be rectified.

The defects pointed out by the Petitioner as the paragraphs 24 to 38 of the Statement of Truth not being appropriately verified is a curable defect. Moreso, the said defect was cured by the Respondent on the very same day before the learned Trial Court by filing the complete Statement of Truth, a copy of which was also supplied to the petitioner herein. Thus, there is no merit in the submission raised by the Petitioner that plaint should be considered of having only paragraphs 1 to 23 and remaining are liable to be struck off.Accordingly, no reason is made out to set aside the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Tags : Curable defect Striking of Paragraph

Share :