1985 Supreme(MP) 751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
T. N. SINGH, J.
Noshe Khan - Appellant
Versus
Masood Khan - Respondent
C. R. No. 261 of 1977 (G)
Decided on : 12-12-1985

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.6, R. 1 – sanctity must be attached to pleadings – written statement is an important document.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 6, R. 15 – written statement not verified properly – such written statement can be ignored by the Court.

       (3) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.22, R. 4 (2) – written statement filed by deceased defendant – legal representative can file a fresh written statement.

       (4) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.6, R. 17 – application for amendment – cannot be dismissed without considering grievance.

        Short Note

       1. I have been taken through the impugned order, which is not only illegal but it is also incorrect. Illegal for several reasons but incorrect for single and singular reason that application for amendment of the written statement was obviously filed by the defendant and could never have been filed obviously by the plaintiff and still reference is made to the plaintiff's application. If this manifests anything it clearly manifests one thing positively that there was total non – application of mind and arbitrary disposal and dismissal of the application for amendment made by the defendant.

       2. Held : That apart the factual flaw in the order is that a view was taken by the trial Court to say that the finding was necessary for disposal of the application by which what is meant is best understood by the Court itself which passed a cryptic order and does not say anything more than that. I have carefully perused the revision petition, wherein each and every facts and the background of the list is pictured minutely. At para 4 of the revision petition there is categorical statements that the written statement, which was filed by the defendant earlier contained certain admissions, which by the application in question were at all withdrawn on the ground that the said admissions were extracted from him by playing fraud taking advantage of his illiteracy. The written statement in which the said admission found place, according the revisionist's case, was prepared by the plaintiff on a blank paper on which the revisionist's thumb impression was obtained earlier. It is also stated in categorical terms that the revisionist was not represented in the trial Court by any counsel when the disputed written statement was filed. I am amazed that the legal conscience of the Court not moved to record any finding on this extraordinary and crucial grievances made by the defendants. How could the application for amendment be dismissed without considering the grievance, defeats my comprehension.

       3. Shri Arun Mishra, appearing for the revisionists/defendant, has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in Devisingh rendered on 29 – 11 – 1985 in Civil Revision No. 275 of 1985, wherein it was held that it was open to the legal representatives of the defendants not only to apply for the amendment of the written statement filed by their predecessor – in – interest but even for filing a fresh written statement if the earlier written statement was not it written statement contemplated under the law. The view was taken on the facts that there was a written statement on record by the predecessor in interest of the said legal representatives on which there appeared a thumb impression of the deceased but the thumb impression was not certified by any counsel and there was no representation of the deceased by any counsel in the suit when the written statement was filed. I felt disposed to observe that a written statement was an important document which bound the parties and sanctity must be attached to pleadings of the parties. To accept any scrap of paper as the pleading, it must appear to the Court that the relevant procedure prescribed in the Code for presentation of the pleadings had been duly observed if a written statement did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of proper verification, such a written statement cannot be accepted a proper written statement and such a written statement can be ignored by the Court. The uncertified thumb impression on the written statement in that case it was held tentamount to want of proper verification and the facts of this case are not at all dissimilar necessitating similar finding in the instant case.

       Revision allowed.