T P SATHYANARAYANA Vs. MAHESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents--Plaintiffs have instituted suit on 2.3.05 for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and for other reliefs against the Petitioners--Defendants. Written statement was filed on 20.06.05. Defendants filed I.A.4 under Order VII Rule 11 (d of Code of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint on the ground that it is not verified as required under Order VI, Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs filed objections stating that a verification affidavit has been filed along with the plaint and hence, the plaint is not liable to be rejected. The Trial Court has held that the requirement of Order VI, Rule 15 is a procedural requirement and the mistake or negligence on the part of the Plaintiffs is an irregularity which can be cured by amending the plaint and hence, on the ground of non verification of the pleadings, plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure. This writ petition by the Defendants, is against the said order.

(2.) Sri Suresh S. Lokre, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioners contended that, the provisions under Order VI, Rule 15 of Code of Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory and in view of the undisputed fact that, the plaint has not been verified by the Plaintiffs, the Trial Court is not justified in rejecting I.A.4. Learned Counsel contends that the impugned order is both irrational and illegal.

(3.) Sri K.B. Thippeswamy, learned advocate appearing for the Respondents on the other hand contended that, the deficiency was a mere procedural error-which was capable of being cured, which occurred on account of the inadvertence and hence an application has now been filed seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint i.e., to incorporate the verification. Learned Counsel submitted, that, the omission which is bona fide would not, render the plaint liable for rejection.