ALAUDDIN HALDER Vs. SETH DAULAT RAM LILANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendants/petitioners and is directed against the judgment and order dated March 18, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fourteenth Court, Alipore, District ? South 24 Parganas in Civil Revision Case No.295 of 2002 thereby affirming the order no.55 dated April 8, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Baruipur, District ? South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.192 of 1997.

(2.) THE short fact is that the opposite parties instituted a Title Suit being Title Suit No.192 of 1997 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baruipur, District ? South 24 Parganas against the petitioners for declaration, injunction and other reliefs through their alleged constituted attorney, Mansur Ali Molla. THE petitioners have been possessing the suit property, as described in the schedule of the plaint, since purchase in the year 1992. THE so-called power of attorney is a forged document and Mansur Ali Molla was not at all empowered by the plaintiffs as their constituted attorney to act on their behalf and as such, the said Mansur Ali Molla had no locus standi to bring any litigation including the instant suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. For that reason, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 14 & 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for direction upon the plaintiffs to appear in person for proper verification. It is also contended that the verification of the plaint has not been properly done. It was not signed by any of the plaintiffs. THErefore, the plaint should be rejected. That application was rejected by the learned Trial Judge and then it was confirmed by the revisional court. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application has been preferred. Mr. Ashis Kumar Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the plaintiffs are the said Daulat Ram Lilani and others whereas the alleged power of attorney was executed in favour of Mansur Ali Molla. THEre are 10 plaintiffs and in fact, none of them signed on the plaint as well as the verification. It is very doubtful whether the plaintiffs at all filed the said suit or if they executed the so-called power of attorney in favour of Mansur Ali Molla. So, presence of the plaintiffs is a must for verification of the genuineness of the matter. Mr. Bagchi also submits that the power of attorney has not been signed by all the plaintiffs at all.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction by as many as 10 plaintiffs through one Mansur Ali Molla. But the plaint and the verification have not been signed by any of the plaintiffs. According to Order 6 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., the plaint shall be signed by the plaintiff and his lawyer. Such a procedure has been adopted in the Code to fix responsibility on the person who is affirming the averments of the plaint. Similarly, the provision for verification has also been made for fixing responsibility and to have the genuineness of the matter so that if any false statement is made, appropriate action may be taken. Therefore, the verification must be done by the plaintiff. But, if the plaintiff is unable to sign the plaint and the verification for good reason that can be done by any responsible person on behalf of the plaintiff on the basis of a power of attorney. In the instant case, as per submission of the learned Advocate of both the sides, the verification of the plaint was wrong initially but it was cured subsequently.