The verification of a plaint before a Notary Public in a foreign country is valid and does not violate the mandatory provisions of law. Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are procedural in nature and non-compliance does not automatically render the plaint non est.

JUDGMENT :

P.C.:

1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 25.02.2021, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mapusa (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court), whereby Applications for rejection of plaint at Exhibit D-13 (filed by the petitioners) and Exhibit D-15 (filed by the respondent no. 3) were dismissed. The petitioners before this Court are the original defendant nos. 1 and 2, who had filed Application for rejection of the plaint at Exhibit D-13.

2. The ground raised on behalf of the petitioners before the Trial Court, while seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), was that the plaint was not verified or affirmed in terms of the mandatory requirements of Order VI, Rule 15 of the CPC. It was claimed that the said defect went to the root of the matter, thereby showing that the plaint was liable to be rejected as being barred by law. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs) filed their replies, opposing the said Application.

3. By the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the Applications, after considering the contentions raised on behalf of the rival parties. The Trial Court referred to the judgments, on which reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners and after considering the contentions raised in the context of the provisions of the CPC and Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, found that the Applications deserved to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the Applications for rejection of plaint. He placed reliance on Sections 26 and 139 of the CPC, as also Order VI, Rule 1 and Order VI, Rule 15 of the CPC. Reliance was also placed on Clause 8(d)(iv) of Chapter II of the Civil Manual and Section 14 of the Notaries Act, to contend that a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that the verification was completely defective. It was submitted that there was nothing placed on record to show that a Notification was issued by the Central Government, as contemplated under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, concerning reciprocal arrangement between Canada and India, to show that the verification executed before Notary Public in Canada satisfied the requirements of law. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Calcutta High Court, In re, K. K. Ray (Private) Ltd., AIR 1967 Calcutta 636 and in the matter of Rei Agro Ltd. & Others, AIR 2015 Calcutta 54.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that there was no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. It was brought to the notice of this Court that as far back as in the year 1961, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of All India Reporter Ltd. & Another Vs. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar, AIR 1961 BOM 292, had held that improper verification of the plaint, at worst, was a curable defect and that it could not be said that a plaint suffering from such irregularities, was not filed in the eyes of law. On this basis, it was submitted that the defect, if any, was curable and on this basis, the Application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC was not maintainable. On the merits of the matter, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the position of law was covered in favour of the respondents as per the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Zhejiang Medicines and Health Products Import and Export Co. Ltd. Vs. Devanshi Impex Pvt. Ltd., 2016 SCC Online Bom 10041. He submitted that the provisions of the CPC, the Evidence Act and particularly, Section 14 of the Notaries Act, were taken into consideration in the said judgment. The judgments of the Calcutta High Court, upon which the petitioners had placed reliance, were also considered and it was found that a verification, notarized outside India could not be said