Is Filing Statement of Truth on Affidavit Mandatory Under Commercial Courts Act?

Analyzing Whether the Absence of a Statement of Truth Render Pleadings Invalid in Commercial Suits

In the high-stakes environment of commercial litigation, where efficiency and speed are prioritized, procedural lapses can often lead to anxiety for both litigants and their legal counsel. Among the most debated procedural requirements is the necessity of the Statement of Truth. Many practitioners find themselves asking: Is the Statement of Truth Not Mandatory in Commercial Courts? This question arises because the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, imposes a much more rigorous standard for pleadings than ordinary civil suits, leading to fears that a simple clerical omission could result in a party's defense being struck off entirely.

The tension lies between the legislative intent to curb frivolous litigation and the judicial commitment to ensuring that substantive justice is not sacrificed at the altar of technicality. To understand whether the absence of this document is fatal, one must look at the intersection of the Commercial Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Statutory Mandate of Order VI Rule 15A

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, introduced critical amendments to the CPC to expedite the resolution of high-value commercial disputes. Specifically, Order VI Rule 15A requires that any pleading in a commercial suit—generally those with a specified value above ₹3 lakhs—must be verified by a Statement of Truth in a prescribed format.

The statute is quite explicit about the consequences of failure. Sub-rule (5) of Order VI Rule 15A provides that The Court may strike out a pleading which is not verified by a Statement of Truth 2005 5 Supreme 236. On the surface, this appears to give the court a mandate to dismiss unverified pleadings. The primary goal of this requirement is to hold the deponent accountable for the truthfulness of the claims made, thereby discouraging the filing of baseless or misleading suits.

Judicial Interpretation: Substance Over Rigid Form

Despite the strict wording of the statute, Indian courts have consistently leaned toward a more flexible interpretation. The judiciary generally views procedural rules as handmaidens of justice, not its masters. In the landmark case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court discussed the nature of such affidavits, noting that The affidavit required... has the effect of fixing additional responsibility on the deponent... such an affidavit would not be evidence for the purpose of the trial 2005 5 Supreme 236.

This distinction is vital. Because the Statement of Truth is intended to fix responsibility rather than serve as primary evidence during the trial, courts are less likely to treat its omission as a fundamental failure of the case's merit. Instead, the focus shifts to whether the omission was a deliberate attempt to deceive the court or a mere procedural oversight.

Is the Defect Curable or Fatal?

The prevailing judicial stance, particularly within the Delhi High Court, is that the non-filing of a Statement of Truth is typically a curable defect. In various commercial suits, the court has clarified that The defect of filing the affidavit/statement of truth is curable and the language of Order VI Rule 15A, CPC is directory only 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2871.

Furthermore, courts have held that Non-filing of the Statement of Truth... would not render the written statement liable to be taken off the record 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2871. This indicates that while the requirement exists, the penalty of striking out a pleading is a discretionary power and not an automatic consequence.

However, there are critical exceptions where this leniency does not apply:

1. Arbitration Petitions (Section 34): In petitions challenging arbitral awards under Section 34, the courts are often stricter. When a Statement of Truth is missing alongside other vital documents like the arbitral award or the vakalatnama, the filing may be declared non-est (invalid from the beginning) 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 222 and 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 631.
2. Limitation Periods: If a defect, such as the non-filing of a Statement of Truth, is discovered after the limitation period for filing the pleading has expired, courts may be less inclined to allow a remedy. Some rulings suggest that such defects... were not curable defects that could be remedied after the expiry of the limitation period 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 631.
3. Repeated Delays: While a first-time omission is usually forgiven, the court may exercise its discretion to close opportunities for parties who exhibit a pattern of repeated delays or blatant disregard for the rules 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1556.

Balancing Procedural Rigor with the Right to a Fair Trial

The core principle guiding these decisions is that Rules of procedure cannot... defeat the substantive rights of the parties unless specifically prohibited by law 2021 0 Supreme(Cal) 332. This sentiment is echoed in broader judicial philosophy, where it is maintained that procedural violations do not impede the delivery of justice if they do not cause actual prejudice to the opposing party 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9317.

For instance, in cases where a defendant filed a written statement without a Statement of Truth and the trial court refused to allow a rectification after the evidence stage, the High Court intervened. The court noted that Non-filing... is a curable defect to prevent injustice and ensure fair trial 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 396. This underscores the priority given to the merits of the case over technical verification formats.

Practical Takeaways for Litigants

To avoid unnecessary litigation over procedural technicalities, parties involved in commercial suits should adhere to the following practices:

• Strict Adherence to Timelines: Written statements should be filed within 30 days, with a maximum extension to 120 days if condoned by the court 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 862.
• Immediate Rectification: If it is discovered that a Statement of Truth was omitted, an application should be moved promptly under Section 151 of the CPC or Order VI Rule 15A(5) to cure the defect.
• Comprehensive Filing in Arbitration: When filing Section 34 petitions, ensure the Statement of Truth is bundled with all other mandatory documents to avoid the filing being treated as non-est.
• Verification of Suit Nature: Always confirm if the suit is officially categorized as a commercial dispute, as this triggers the special requirements of the Commercial Courts Act rather than the standard CPC rules.

Conclusion

In summary, while the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, makes the Statement of Truth a procedural requirement, it is not mandatory in the sense that its omission automatically terminates a party's right to be heard. Generally, the non-filing of a Statement of Truth in a commercial written statement is viewed as a curable defect. The judiciary continues to prioritize natural justice and the substantive merits of a dispute over rigid adherence to verification formats, provided there is no prejudice to the other side. However, this flexibility is not an excuse for negligence, and litigants should strive for full compliance to ensure their case proceeds without avoidable hurdles. This information is provided for general understanding and does not constitute specific legal advice.