MURTI DEVI @ RAMESHWARI DEVI Vs. ARCHANA CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is in revision against an order rejecting application for amending the written statement. The suit property has been sold twice over. The new facts pleaded in para.6 (a) of the proposed amended written statement as well as all facts pleaded after para.6 have not been verified at all at the foot of the written statement. The verification clause of the written statement mentions only paras.1 to 5 but not the rest as admitted by the learned counsel. Therefore, such facts as are neither verified nor sworn to on affidavit do not form part of pleadings. If there are no pleadings no evidence can be led in support of such averments. In any case, the defendant was expected to know his case to meet to start with inasmuch as the defendant had purchased the suit property from the daughter of a man certified dead evidenced by the death certificate issued by the Registrar of births and deaths and produced on record. According to the learned counsel there was presumption of death as the man's whereabouts were not known for over two -three decades. However, the plaintiff purchased the same property from the father of the defendants -vendors. The proof or otherwise of the disappearance of the father is subject matter of adjudication. It was open to the defendant to have incorporated such state of facts in his original written statement before issues were struck and evidence of the plaintiff commenced. Now after six witnesses have been produced by the plaintiffin support of his case and their testimonies stand recorded, the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amending the written statement. The same has been dismissed for good and sufficient reasons by the learned trial Court duly recorded in the impugned order. There is neither any legal flaw, factual error or jurisdictional infirmity found in the order sufficient for this Court to come to the rescue of the defendant in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE verification clause in pleadings has a salutary place in a plaint or written statement since the Court proceeds and reads pleadings as true accounts of facts stated therein and to enable it to strike proper triable issues arising therefrom and invite evidence according to onus placed on them. No departure can be made in the verification clause at the foot of pleadings of facts pleaded on oath and whether they are true to personal knowledge, information received and believed to be true or through persons acquainted with the facts of the case or statements made on legal advise the sum total of which are to be duly supported by affidavit. In the present case the new facts sought to be introduced in the written statement are not duly verified.Thus no cognizance can be taken of them. This fatal lacunae has been discovered during the course of arguments before me. If the defect is curable then the remedy is not the present revision petition. It is well settled that neither evidence nor law is required to be pleaded as only material facts are necessary. See Order 6 Rule 1 and 15, CPC. Legal principles applicable to the case are always available to the parties to substantiate claim for a decree or of dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THAT freedom remains with the defendant when he leads his evidence. The two sale deeds would be, needless to say, examined by the learned trial court at the appropriate stage and findings returned accordingly on the materials available on record. There is no error apparent on the face of record. I therefore do not find this is a fit case for interference and would dismiss it.