IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.I. ARUN, J.
N. BABU REDDY S/O LATE NARAYAN REDDY – Petitioner
Versus
M/S. EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18331 of 2024
Decided On : 22-07-2024
CPC - Written Statement - Order VI Rule 15A - The court emphasized the mandatory nature of filing a statement of truth with pleadings in commercial disputes, allowing for curable defects to prevent injustice.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a written statement that did not comply with the verification requirements of Order VI Rule 15A of CPC. After realizing the omission post-evidence closure, the defendant sought to rectify the error through several applications, which were dismissed by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in not allowing the defendant to rectify the omission, as it would cause irreparable harm by striking off the defense. The court held that the non-filing of the statement of truth was a curable defect.
Issues: Whether the non-filing of a statement of truth in compliance with Order VI Rule 15A of CPC is a curable defect.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that while compliance with Order VI Rule 15A is mandatory, inadvertent omissions should be allowed to be corrected to prevent injustice and ensure fair trial.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the trial court's order is set aside, permitting the defendant to file the statement of truth.
ORDER :
1. 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.
2. 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. It is submitted that 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. Immediately, he filed I.A. No. 10 under Section 151 of CPC to recall the said order of the trial court, I.A. No. 11 under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to permit the defendant to file the statement of truth in support of his written statement and I.A. No. 12 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC praying to condone the delay in filing I.A. No. 11. The trial court has dismissed the said applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.1
3. The case of the petitioner is that he has filed his written statement within time and that he has co-operated with the trial court at every stage without trying to drag the proceedings and it was by mistake the statement of truth was not filed along with the written statement and that it is a curable error and the trial court erred in by holding it otherwise and the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury as the order of the trial court has the effect of striking off the defence of the petitioner/defendant.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent justifies the order passed by the trial court and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. It is further contended that the provisions of Order VI Rule 15A of CPC are mandatory and having not complied with the same, then the petitioner is bound to suffer the consequences.
5. The question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether non filing of statement of truth or not complying with the mandatory provisions of Order VI Rule 15A of CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, at the time of filing the written statement is a curable defect or not?
6. Order VI Rule 15A of CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 reads as under:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 15, every pleading in a Commercial Dispute shall be verified by an affidavit in the manner and form prescribed in the Appendix to this Schedule.
(2) An affidavit under sub-rule (1) above shall be signed by the party or by one of the parties to the proceedings, or by any other person on behalf of such party or parties who is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case and who is duly authorised by such party or parties.
(3) Where a pleading is amended, the amendments must be verified in the form and manner referred to in sub-rule (1) unless the Court orders otherwise.
(4) Where a pleading is not verified in the manner provided under sub-rule (1), the party shall not be permitted to rely on such pleading as evidence or any of the matters set out therein.
(5) The Court may strike out a pleading which is not verified by a Statement of Truth, namely, the affidavit set out in the Appendix to this Schedule.”
7. A reading of the said provision makes it clear that the intention of the legislature is that when a pleading is not verified by a statement of truth as specified, the party cannot be permitted to rely on such pleading. Hence, filing of statement of truth along with the pleadings is mandatory. However, the aspect that requires to be considered is, if the same is inadvertently left out, then in that event, c
The court established that non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements can be treated as a curable defect to prevent injustice in commercial litigation.
Without taking the avowed object of quick resolution of commercial disputes away from the 2015 Act, rules of procedure cannot be given precedence in a manner so as to defeat the substantive rights of....
The curable nature of procedural defects and the directory nature of procedural provisions under the CPC and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(1) Amendment – It is the settled law that the amendment can be made in pleadings which includes plaint and written statement and in view of settled propositions of law the applications in any procee....
In commercial suits, a written statement filed beyond 30 days without a condonation application may not be accepted, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines.
The court affirmed that the timelines for filing written statements are directory in non-commercial disputes, allowing the defendant an opportunity to submit his statement upon payment of costs.
Section 15 of Act, 2015 deals with transfer of pending cases.
The mandatory timeframe for filing a written statement is reset when service of summons does not include a copy of the plaint, thereby allowing acceptance of the written statement if filed within 120....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.