The Legal Status of Unverified Written Statements in Indian Civil Procedure: An Analysis of Defects, Curability, and Consequences

Introduction

Pleadings form the bedrock of civil litigation in India, delineating the contours of dispute and providing the factual matrix upon which judicial determination rests. The Written Statement (WS), as the defendant's formal response to the plaint, is a critical component of these pleadings. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) mandates specific requirements for pleadings, including their verification. This article undertakes a scholarly analysis of the legal implications arising when a written statement is not verified, or is defectively verified, under Indian law. It examines the purpose of verification, the judicial approach towards such defects—particularly whether they are considered mere irregularities or fatal flaws—the curability of such defects, and the consequences of non-compliance, drawing upon statutory provisions and a wide array of judicial pronouncements, including the reference materials provided.

The Statutory Mandate for Verification of Pleadings

The primary provision governing the verification of pleadings in India is Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC. Order VI Rule 14 CPC requires every pleading to be signed by the party and by his pleader (if any). Subsequent to this, Order VI Rule 15(1) stipulates that, save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.

Order VI Rule 15(2) requires the person verifying to specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. Order VI Rule 15(3) mandates that the verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed.

Furthermore, with the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a more stringent requirement has been introduced for commercial disputes. Order VI Rule 15A CPC (as amended for commercial disputes) mandates that every pleading in a commercial dispute shall be verified by an affidavit in the form of a Statement of Truth, as prescribed in the Appendix to the Schedule. This signifies a legislative intent towards ensuring greater accountability in pleadings within commercial litigation (RAJESH WADHAWAN v. SH NAVEEN SABHARWAL, Delhi High Court, 2024; KORRA WORLDWIDE ADVERTISING PVT LTD v. HT DIGITAL STREAMS LIMITED, Delhi High Court, 2024).

Purpose and Significance of Verification

The judiciary has consistently emphasized the importance of verification. Its primary object is to fix responsibility for the statements made in the pleadings upon the party verifying them and to affirm the guarantee of good faith (Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State, Delhi High Court, 2010, quoting Emperor v. Padam Singh, AIR 1930 Allahabad 490). Verification is intended to prevent false pleadings from being recklessly filed or false allegations being recklessly made (Union Of India v. Shanti Gurung, Delhi High Court, 2014, citing State Of Punjab & Another v. Shri I.M Lall, ILR 1975 Delhi 332). The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N v. Union Of India (2005 SCC 6 344) noted, in the context of affidavits accompanying pleadings, that such requirements impose an additional responsibility on the deponent to ensure the truthfulness of the statements. This underlying principle applies with equal force to the act of verification.

A properly verified pleading assures the court that the party is aware of the contents of the pleading and takes responsibility for them. The Bombay High Court in Vidyadhar H. Varma v. R.H. Mendonca (Bombay High Court, 1999) criticized "cryptic and mechanical verification," underscoring the need for genuine verification as a safeguard. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in Jacinto Minguel De Quadros Barretto & Others v. Haridas Maruti Kamat & Another (2005 SCC ONLINE BOM 1252) highlighted the importance of parties adhering to their verified pleadings.

Judicial Approach to Non-Verification or Defective Verification

General Principle: A Curable Procedural Irregularity

The preponderant judicial view in India is that the absence of verification or a defect in verification of a pleading, including a written statement, is a procedural irregularity and not an illegality that renders the pleading void or a nullity. Such defects are generally considered curable.

The Supreme Court in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh And Another (2006 SCC 1 75), while dealing with defects in vakalatnama and representation, reiterated the principle that procedural defects which are not deliberate and can be amended should not overshadow substantive justice. This sentiment is echoed in cases concerning pleadings. In Vidyawati Gupta And Others v. Bhakti Hari Nayak And Others (2006 SCC 2 777), the Supreme Court held that the absence of an affidavit verifying a plaint was a curable defect and procedural rules are generally directory. The Court emphasized that procedure is the handmaiden of justice and should not be used to deny it (Union Of India v. Shanti Gurung, Delhi High Court, 2014, citing Kailash v. Nanhku, 2005 SCC 4 480).

The Delhi High Court in Union Of India v. Shanti Gurung (2014) explicitly stated that the defect of signatures and verification in pleadings is an irregularity which can be remedied; it is not fatal but is a curable defect. Similarly, in Akshay Mehta v. Usha Dutta (Delhi High Court, 2017), it was held that lack of verification is a mere irregularity which can be cured and does not invalidate or efface the document from records. An irregular written statement is still a pleading, and a party cannot be permitted to deny admissions therein due to such irregularity. The Patna High Court in M/S. Shiv Shankar Prasad v. Union Of India (Patna High Court, 1984) also held that a defect in verification is a mere irregularity curable under Section 99 of the CPC.

The principle of curability extends to allowing amendments or rectifications even at a later stage. The Bombay High Court in Jottram Shtva Patil And Others v. Dwarkabai Yashwant Mardane And Others (2011 SCC ONLINE BOM 1512) permitted defendants to sign the written statement and correct the verification clause at the appellate stage, noting that such defects were due to inadvertence.

Contrasting Views and Stricter Interpretations

While the dominant view leans towards curability, some judicial observations suggest a stricter stance. The Delhi High Court in Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State (2010), quoting Emperor v. Padam Singh (AIR 1930 Allahabad 490), noted that an unverified written statement "is not, until that verification is attached, a written statement in law at all and could not be received for any purpose whatever." A similar strict view was noted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pop Singh S/O Sardar Singh Yadav And Others v. Ram Singh S/O Toran Singh Yadav And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2012), citing Babulal Agrawal v. Jyoti Shrivastava (2000(1) MPLJ 102) for the proposition that "without verification of the pleadings in the written statement, it is not a written statement in the eye of law."

However, these stricter interpretations appear to be less prevalent compared to the Supreme Court's consistent stance on procedural laws serving substantive justice. The context of such observations often involves egregious lapses or specific statutory schemes.

Specific Contexts and Their Implications

Election Petitions

In the realm of election law, governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, while defects in verification are still considered curable, there is a heightened emphasis on meticulous compliance. The Supreme Court in Regu Mahesh Alias Regu Maheswar Rao v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev And Another (2004 SCC 1 46) and F.A Sapa And Others v. Singora And Others (1991 SCC 3 375) affirmed that defects in verification or affidavits are generally curable, but persistent negligence or failure to rectify them can lead to dismissal of the election petition. In Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005 SCC 13 511), the Supreme Court reiterated that defects in verification and affidavit in an election petition are "curable" and not fatal. The Kerala High Court in K.K. Ramachandran Master, Wayanad District v. M.V. Sreyamskumar, Wayanad Others (Kerala High Court, 2007) also noted that pleadings not verified as enjoined by law can be a ground for preliminary objection in an election petition.

Commercial Disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

As noted earlier, Order VI Rule 15A CPC, applicable to commercial disputes, mandates verification by a Statement of Truth (an affidavit). Sub-rule (4) of Order VI Rule 15A states that where a pleading is not verified in the prescribed manner, "the party shall not be permitted to rely on such pleading as evidence or any of the matters set out therein." Furthermore, sub-rule (5) empowers the Court to "strike out a pleading which is not verified by a Statement of Truth." This regime is demonstrably stricter than the general provisions of Order VI Rule 15 CPC. The Delhi High Court in RAJESH WADHAWAN v. SH NAVEEN SABHARWAL (2024) and KORRA WORLDWIDE ADVERTISING PVT LTD v. HT DIGITAL STREAMS LIMITED (2024) dealt with such situations, ultimately permitting the defects to be cured, but the statutory power to strike out or disallow reliance on the pleading remains a significant consequence of non-compliance.

Practical Aspects: Curing Defects and Consequences of Non-Cure

Opportunity to Cure

Courts generally provide an opportunity to the party to rectify the defect in verification. This aligns with the principle that procedural rules should not be used as traps to defeat justice. The defect can range from a complete absence of verification, an unsigned verification, or a verification that does not properly distinguish between statements made on personal knowledge and those based on information and belief. An affidavit sworn before the preparation of the written statement it purports to support has been held to be problematic (Union Of India v. Shanti Gurung, Delhi High Court, 2014).

Consequences of Failure to Verify or Cure Defects

If a party fails to verify the written statement or fails to cure a defective verification despite an opportunity being granted, the court has several options. While outright rejection of the written statement solely for want of proper verification is rare if the defect is bona fide and sought to be cured, persistent refusal or gross negligence may lead the court to refuse to accept the written statement or to strike it off the record. In Institute Of Town Planners, India Petitioner v. Mahender Singh Mehra (Delhi High Court, 2018), it was noted that a written statement not signed and verified by a duly authorized person was rightly not taken on record. If a written statement is not taken on record or is struck out, the defendant may be placed in a position as if no written statement has been filed, potentially leading to proceedings under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

Even if an unverified or defectively verified written statement is on record, its evidentiary value may be questioned. As seen in the context of commercial disputes (Order VI Rule 15A(4)), the party may not be permitted to rely on such a pleading as evidence. While a defendant who has filed an irregular written statement cannot take benefit of such irregularity, they may still be bound by admissions made therein if sought to be read against them (Akshay Mehta v. Usha Dutta, Delhi High Court, 2017).

The Supreme Court in United Bank Of India v. Naresh Kumar And Others (1996 SCC 6 660), while dealing with the authority to sign a plaint on behalf of a corporation, held that procedural defects concerning authority did not nullify substantive claims and could be ratified. This general principle supports the view that defects in verification of a written statement, being procedural, should not automatically lead to adverse substantive consequences if they are curable and cured.

The inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC, as discussed in K.K Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011 SCC 11 275) in the context of reopening evidence, can also be invoked to ensure that procedural technicalities do not defeat the ends of justice, which could include allowing rectification of verification defects in appropriate cases.

Conclusion

The legal position in India regarding unverified or defectively verified written statements largely leans towards treating such defects as procedural irregularities that are curable. The overarching aim of the judiciary is to ensure that substantive justice prevails over technicalities, and parties are generally afforded an opportunity to rectify such omissions. The purpose of verification – to fix responsibility and ensure authenticity – remains paramount, and failure to comply can have consequences, especially if the defect is not cured or if the lapse is seen as contumacious.

However, specific legislative schemes, such as those governing election petitions and commercial disputes (under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with its "Statement of Truth" requirement), impose more stringent standards. In these areas, while curability may still be an option, the threshold for compliance is higher, and the consequences of non-compliance can be more severe, including the striking out of pleadings or disallowing reliance on them as evidence. Ultimately, the courts endeavor to strike a balance, ensuring that procedural rules serve their intended purpose as facilitators of justice, rather than becoming instruments of obstruction.