2019 Supreme(Bom) 1646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B.P. Colabawalla, J.
Sanjay Mishrimal Panamiya – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya and Others – Respondents
Notice of Motion No. 528 of 2015, 534 of 2015; Suit No. 175 of 2014, 175 of 2014
Decided On : 06-09-2019

The provisions of the Stamp Act are for the purpose of securing the revenue and not to arm the litigant with an argument of technicality to meet the case of the opponent. Once the revenue is secured, the Stamp Act has little role to play in a dispute inter-se between the parties.

Headnote:

VERIFICATION OF PLEADINGS - [KEYWORD] - ORDER VI RULE 15 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - [SUBJECT] - ORDER VI RULE 14, ORDER IV RULE 1 SUB-RULE 3, ORDER VII RULE 11 AND SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The Court held that the verification clause is not defective and in any event is a curable defect, there is no question of invoking Section 151 for rejecting the plaint as sought for by defendant No.3 in its Notice of Motion. The Court also held that the power of attorney executed in favour of Mr. Kurdi is an unstamped document and hence the suit as filed, cannot be said to be properly instituted and taken cognizance of by this Court. However, this would make no difference. The provisions of the Stamp Act are for the purpose of securing the revenue and not to arm the litigant with an argument of technicality to meet the case of the opponent. Once the revenue is secured, the Stamp Act has little role to play in a dispute inter-se between the parties. Non-stamping of the document, even under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 is a curable defect.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Sheikhah Fadiah Saad Al-Abdullah AlSabah through her constituted attorney Firas El-Kurdi instituted a suit against the defendants for declaration that all the defendants are the trespassers and have no right of any nature whatsoever in the suit premises. The defendants filed Notice of Motions seeking the following reliefs:- (a) That without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Defendant No.1 that the Plaint was not filed as per law and rules of procedure and is not a legally instituted Plaint, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Plaintiff to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that Firas El-Kurdi the person who has verified the Plaint and filed an Affidavit in support of the Plaint is acquainted with the facts of the case in terms of Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (b) That in the alternative to Prayer Clause a above, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to reject the Plaint as filed by the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 14 or under Order VII Rule 11 and/or under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the verification clause is not defective and in any event is a curable defect, there is no question of invoking Section 151 for rejecting the plaint as sought for by defendant No.3 in its Notice of Motion. The Court also held that the power of attorney executed in favour of Mr. Kurdi is an unstamped document and hence the suit as filed, cannot be said to be properly instituted and taken cognizance of by this Court. However, this would make no difference. The provisions of the Stamp Act are for the purpose of securing the revenue and not to arm the litigant with an argument of technicality to meet the case of the opponent. Once the revenue is secured, the Stamp Act has little role to play in a dispute inter-se between the parties. Non-stamping of the document, even under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 is a curable defect.

Issues: Whether the verification clause is defective and whether the plaint is properly instituted and taken cognizance of by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the verification clause is not defective and in any event is a curable defect, there is no question of invoking Section 151 for rejecting the plaint as sought for by defendant No.3 in its Notice of Motion. The Court also held that the power of attorney executed in favour of Mr. Kurdi is an unstamped document and hence the suit as filed, cannot be said to be properly instituted and taken cognizance of by this Court. However, this would make no difference. The provisions of the Stamp Act are for the purpose of securing the revenue and not to arm the litigant with an argument of technicality to meet the case of the opponent. Once the revenue is secured, the Stamp Act has little role to play in a dispute inter-se between the parties. Non-stamping of the document, even under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 is a curable defect.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed both the Notice of Motions filed by the defendants.