Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. N. Babu Reddy, was the defendant in Commercial O.S. No. 104/2022 before the XI Additional District Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District. The respondent, M/s. EIT Services India Private Limited, was the plaintiff. The defendant filed his written statement within the stipulated time, but it did not comply with the verification requirements under Order VI Rule 15-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Consequently, the trial court ordered that the defendant could not rely on such pleadings for leading evidence. After the plaintiff's evidence was closed, the defendant realized the mistake and filed I.A. No. 10 under Section 151 CPC to recall the order, I.A. No. 11 under Section 151 CPC to permit him to lead evidence, and I.A. No. 12 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement to include proper verification. The trial court dismissed these applications. Aggrieved, the defendant filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court considered the issue of whether the defect in verification is curable and whether the defendant should be allowed to lead evidence. The Court noted that the written statement was filed within time and the defect was only in the form of verification. The Court held that the defect is curable and the defendant should be given an opportunity to file a properly verified written statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the plaintiff. The trial court's order was set aside, and the applications were allowed. The Court directed the trial court to permit the defendant to file a properly verified written statement within two weeks and to proceed with the trial.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Commercial Suit - Verification of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 15-A CPC read with Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The defendant filed a written statement within time but without proper verification as required under Order VI Rule 15-A CPC. The trial court held that the defendant cannot rely on such pleadings for leading evidence. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and permitted the defendant to file a properly verified written statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000, holding that the defect in verification is curable and the defendant should not be denied the opportunity to lead evidence. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant should be permitted to file a properly verified written statement to cure the defect of non-compliance with Order VI Rule 15-A CPC, and whether the trial court's order preventing the defendant from leading evidence due to such defect is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 13.06.2024, and allowed I.A. Nos. 10 to 12. The defendant was permitted to file a properly verified written statement within two weeks, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the plaintiff. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial.
Law Points
- Order VI Rule 15-A CPC
- Commercial Courts Act 2015
- verification of pleadings
- right to lead evidence
- procedural compliance
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 127
WP No. 18331 of 2024 (GM-CPC)
Harish Kumar M.S. (for petitioner), Geetha M.S. for Goutamaditya (for respondent)
M/s. EIT Services India Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial court's order dismissing applications for recall, permission to lead evidence, and amendment of written statement in a commercial suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (defendant) sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 13.06.2024 and to allow I.A. Nos. 10 to 12, thereby permitting him to file a properly verified written statement and lead evidence.
Filing Reason
The defendant's written statement did not comply with the verification requirements under Order VI Rule 15-A CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, leading to the trial court ordering that the defendant cannot rely on such pleadings for leading evidence.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed I.A. Nos. 10 to 12 filed by the defendant, which sought recall of the order, permission to lead evidence, and amendment of the written statement.
Issues
Whether the defect in verification of the written statement under Order VI Rule 15-A CPC is curable?
Whether the defendant should be permitted to file a properly verified written statement and lead evidence despite the initial non-compliance?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the written statement was filed within time and the defect was only in the form of verification, which is curable. He sought permission to file a properly verified written statement to lead evidence.
The respondent opposed the applications, contending that the defendant had not complied with the mandatory requirements of Order VI Rule 15-A CPC and should not be allowed to cure the defect at a belated stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The defect in verification of a written statement under Order VI Rule 15-A CPC is curable, and the defendant should not be denied the opportunity to lead evidence solely on that ground. The court has discretion to permit curing of such defects subject to appropriate costs, especially when the written statement was filed within time.
Judgment Excerpts
Aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on I.A.Nos.10 to 12 in Com.O.S.No.104/2022, the defendant therein has preferred this writ petition.
The defendant has filed his written statement within the time stipulated, but it does not comply with the provisions of Order VI Rule 15-A of CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The written statement was not verified in the manner provided and as per Order VI Rule 15A(4) of CPC, the defendant cannot rely upon such pleadings for leading evidence.
The petitioner realized the mistake after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and the trial court ordered that the petitioner/defendant cannot lead his evidence.
The defect is curable and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file a properly verified written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000 to the respondent.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Commercial O.S. No. 104/2022 before the XI Additional District Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District. The defendant filed a written statement within time but without proper verification under Order VI Rule 15-A CPC. The trial court ordered that the defendant cannot rely on such pleadings for leading evidence. After the plaintiff's evidence was closed, the defendant filed I.A. No. 10 under Section 151 CPC to recall the order, I.A. No. 11 under Section 151 CPC to permit leading evidence, and I.A. No. 12 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement. The trial court dismissed these applications on 13.06.2024. The defendant then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VI Rule 15-A, Order VI Rule 17, Section 151
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015:
- Constitution of India: Article 227
