Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.294 of 2002, filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur on 6th February 2007. The plaintiffs appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.126 of 2007 before the District Court, Kolhapur. During the appeal, the defendants discovered that the written statement was signed and verified only by defendant No.1 Dwarkabai, and not by the other defendants. They filed applications Exhibit 43 and 43A seeking permission to sign the written statement and file supporting affidavits under Order 6 CPC, and to correct the verification clause. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that the amendment was belated and would take away admissions in their favor. The trial court allowed the applications, holding that procedural rules are handmaid of justice and the defect was inadvertent. The High Court upheld the order, noting that the trial proceeded without objection and the amendment would not prejudice the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that procedural defects should not defeat substantive justice, and the power to amend under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is wide enough to cure such defects.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Defect in Signature and Verification - The defendants sought to cure the defect of non-signature and non-verification by some defendants in the written statement at the appellate stage. The trial court allowed the application holding that procedural rules are handmaid of justice. The High Court upheld the order, noting that the trial was conducted oblivious of the defect and the amendment would not cause prejudice to the plaintiffs. (Paras 1-7)
B) Civil Procedure - Signing of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 14 CPC - The requirement of signing pleadings is directory and not mandatory; a defect in signature can be cured at a later stage if no prejudice is caused. The court relied on Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267 and Om Prakash Dinodia v. Ashalata, 2002 (Supp.) BomC.R. 8. (Paras 3-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the defendants to sign and verify the written statement at the appellate stage under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, despite the suit having been dismissed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 14-2-2011 allowing the defendants' applications to sign and verify the written statement.
Law Points
- Order 6 Rule 14 CPC
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Amendment of pleadings
- Defect in signature and verification
- Procedural law as handmaid of justice
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (11) 33
Writ Petition No.8653 of 2011
Mr. Prashant S. Bhavake for the Petitioners, Mr. Surel Shah for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6
Jotiram Shiva Patil & Ors.
Dwarkabai Yashwant Mardane & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order allowing amendment of written statement to cure defect in signatures and verification.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (original plaintiffs) sought to quash the order dated 14-2-2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Kolhapur allowing the defendants' applications to sign and verify the written statement.
Filing Reason
The defendants' written statement was signed and verified only by defendant No.1; other defendants sought to cure the defect at the appellate stage.
Previous Decisions
The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur on 6-2-2007. The plaintiffs appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.126 of 2007. The trial court allowed the defendants' applications on 14-2-2011.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the defendants to sign and verify the written statement at the appellate stage under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the defect in signature and verification of the written statement can be cured after the suit is dismissed.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the amendment was belated and would take away admissions in their favor.
Respondents argued that the defect was inadvertent and procedural rules should not defeat justice, relying on Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply and Om Prakash Dinodia v. Ashalata.
Ratio Decidendi
Procedural rules are handmaid of justice and should be used to further the cause of justice. A defect in signature and verification of pleadings can be cured at a later stage if no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The power under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is wide enough to permit such amendment.
Judgment Excerpts
The rules of procedure are ultimately the handmaid of justice and have therefore, to be used to further the cause of justice and not to oppress it.
The trial was conducted oblivious of the said fact culminating in the dismissal of the suit.
Procedural History
The original plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.294 of 2002 for specific performance. The suit was dismissed on 6-2-2007. Plaintiffs appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.126 of 2007. During appeal, defendants filed applications Exhibit 43 and 43A to cure defect in written statement. The trial court allowed the applications on 14-2-2011. Plaintiffs filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 6 Rule 14, Order 6 Rule 17
