Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4446
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
AKSHAY MEHTA & ORS. - Plaintiffs
Versus
SMT. USHA DUTTA & ORS. - Defendants
CS(OS) 2 of 2007
Decided On : 05-12-2017
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Arun Francis.
For the Defendants :Mr. Rajesh Yadav and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chhetry, Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Mr. Ragya Vaidehy Singh, Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Mr. Shakeel Sarwarwani, Mr. Serman Rawat and Mr. Sahil Sood.
Lack of verification is a mere irregularity which does not invalidate a document, and a party cannot resile from admissions made in a pleading.
Headnote:
Written Statement - Amendment under Order VI Rule 7 CPC - - Order VI Rule 7, Order XVI Rule 15, Order VI Rule 14 CPC
Fact of the Case:
Defendant Nos.2 to 4 sought amendment of the Written Statement dated 22.10.2007 under Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) contending that it was not prepared at their instance and lacked verification.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the contention that the Written Statement was not prepared at the defendants' instance and lacked verification. It held that lack of verification is a mere irregularity which can be cured and does not invalidate the document. The court also found that the defendants' attempt to delay the disposal of the suit was evident.
Issues: Validity of the Written Statement, New developments necessitating amendment, Delay in filing the application
Ratio Decidendi: Lack of verification does not invalidate a document, and a party cannot resile from admissions made in a pleading. Delay in filing an application for amendment without valid reasons may be viewed as an attempt to delay the disposal of the suit.
Final Decision: The application for amendment was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
IA No.7923/2014(on b/o. D-2 to 4 u/O.VI R.17 CPC)
1. By this application, under Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Defendant Nos.2 to 4 seek amendment of the Written Statement dated 22.10.2007.
2. It is contended in the application that the Written Statement dated 22.10.2007 is no Written Statement in the eyes of law. This contention is premised on the allegation that the Written Statement was not prepared at the instance of the Defendants. The Applicants/Defendants had not appointed Lawyer. It is contended that the Lawyer of Defendant No.10 was advising them and Defendant No.10 had told the Applicants not to bother about the legal proceedings. It is contended that the Written Statement was prepared and filed by the Lawyers of Defendant No.10 and was not shown or read out to the Applicants.
3. Further, it is contended, that the Written Statement is not verified by any of the Defendants and in the absence of the verification, the Written Statement cannot be taken to be a Written Statement.
4. It is further contended that Defendant No.3 – Smt. Shashi Mehta was asked to sign only one page which appears to be the last page of the Written Statement and likewise, Defendant No.6 Shri Rajneesh Mehta was asked to sign the same page on behalf of Defendant No.2 – Smt. Saroj Mehta.
5. It is contended that Rajneesh Mehta has signed the same as an Attorney but no power of attorney executed by Smt. Saroj Mehta in favour of Shri Rajneesh Mehta has been placed on record.
6. Further, it is contended that the affidavits appended to the Written Statement were signed but were not prepared by the Applicants and the Applicants also did not swear affidavits. It is, on these grounds, it is contended that the Written Statement stated to have been filed on behalf of the Defendant Nos.2 to 5 is no Written Statement in the eyes of law.
7. It is further contended that there have been new developments, in the meantime, which, even if the Written Statement is taken to be the Written Statement of the Applicants, have necessitated changes to their defence. It is contended that the bone of contention is the Will of 1994 and investigations have revealed that not only the Will of 1994 was a forged and fraudulent document but there have been large scale forgery in the Plaintiff’s no objection affidavits filed with the Land & Development Office (L&D.O.) on 20.05.2005 and again on 17.08.2005. It is further contended that the records with the Sub-Registrar Office were tampered, with an attempt to authenticate the forged Will of 1994. It is, on these grounds, that the said application has been filed seeking amendment of the Written Statement dated 22.10.2007 on behalf of Defendant Nos.2 to 5.
8. The Plaintiffs have not filed any reply to the application. Reply has only been filed on behalf of the legal heirs of Defendant No.10 contending that since allegations have been made against Defendant No.10, it has necessitated the filing of a reply to the said application seeking amendment of the Written Statement.
9. On 08.11.2016, this Court noticed the contention of Defendant Nos.2 to 5 that the Written Statement dated 22.10.2007 was not a Written Statement in the eyes of law. This question was further raised by these Applicants on 25.07.2017. On 25.07.2017, it was held that since the Written Statement dated 22.10.2007 was neither signed nor supported by an affidavit of Defendant No.5, it could not be treated as a Written Statement on behalf of Defendant No.5. The arguments were accordingly heard, vis-a-vis Defendant Nos.2 to 4.
10. In light of the contentions raised by the Applicants contending the Written Statement is no Written Statement in the eyes of law, it may be expedient to examine certain facts pertaining to the Written Statement, which are borne out from the records of the case.
11. The Written Statement is dated 22.10.2007. The Written Statement is titled as “Written Statement on behalf of Defendant Nos.2 to 5”. The Written
