Acquaintance with the facts of the case, as required for verification of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, includes familiarity with the facts derived from records or other persons believed to be true. It does not require personal knowledge or being a witness to the events alleged in the pleading.

( 1 ) THE State of Punjab and the Union of India, plaintiffs, have filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, I Class, dated 27th November, 1963, dismissing their suit against the defendant, which had been instituted for recovery of Rs. 19,173. 57. The suit had been dismissed on the sole ground that in answer to issue No. 6, the court has returned a finding that the plaint has not been proved to have been validly signed on behalf of the Union of India and that the verification of the plaint on the part of the State of Punjab has not been made by a duly authorised person acquainted with the facts of the case.

( 2 ) THE meterial facts of the case are that the defendant-respondent, shri I. M. Lall, who was a member of Indian Civil Service (Punjab Cadre) was removed from service on 4th June, 1940. It is stated in the plaint that he had been reinstated in service with effect from 30th September, 1948, but this statement appears to be incorrect and we shall deal with it separately. According to the plaintiffs, after the reinstatement, the Government also paid the defendant ex-gratia compensation of Rs. one lakh and offered to the defendant during the period he had been out of service compassionate allowance at the rate of Rs. 4693. 5. 00 per annum, subject to minimum of 440. 00 per annum. Part of the compassionate allowance was commuted and the other part was paid in instalments. The commuted amount came to Rs. 34,026. 06, though what had been paid to him was Rs. 49,822. 6. 00 (besides Rs. one lakh ). This amount had been paid to the defendant against an undertaking given by him to refund if he were found not entitled to it. Later on the Government discovered that in making the calculations of the payment, it had over paid a sum of Rs. 19,173. 57 and it claimed refund of the same from the defendant, which he declined to pay. The Government of Punjab and the Union of India thereupon on 31st May, 1960 instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal, in which they prayed for a decree for payment of the aforesaid amount besides interest and costs. The defendant contested the suit and raised number of objections. One of the preliminary objections was that the plaint was not properly signed, verified or instituted by a duly authorised person, and the other was that the State of Punjab had no locus standi to file the suit. On the merits, the defendant contended in paragraph 4 that he admitted to have received a sum of Rs. 1,49,822. 6. 00 as alleged, but that he had been declared to be in service finally by judgment of the Privy Council in March, 1948 and that he was entitled to payment of his salary for the said period and that the payment made by the Government did not represent one half of his salary. The defendant had never accepted the payment in full and final settlement of the claim, but only accepted it as part payment and has reserved his right to obtain the balance. He also contended that the commuted value of the compassionate allowance was also part of the compensatory allowance. Replication to the written statement was filed and the preliminary objection of the defendant was controverted. On the pleadings of the parties, eight issues were framed :

"1. Whether the defendant was over paid to the extent of Rs. 34026. 06 plus Rs. 7156. 44 as alleged in para 5 of the plaint ?

2. Whether the defendant did not give a written undertaking to refund the excess payment as alleged in para 4 of the plaint ?

3. If issue No. 2 is not proved whether the said undertaking is legally binding and enforceable in a court of law? (onus objected to ).

4. Whether the plaintiff No. 2 has locus standi to sue?

5. Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action in favour of plaintiff No. 1 against defendant No. 1 ?

6. Whether the plaint is signed and verified and the suit has been instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff ?

7. To what amount besides the admitted amount of Rs. 719. 62