Verification of Pleadings and the Affidavit Mandate: An Analysis of Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India
Introduction
The edifice of civil adjudication in India, governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), places paramount importance on the sanctity and veracity of pleadings. Pleadings, which include the plaint and written statement, form the foundational bedrock upon which the entire trial is constructed. Order 6 of the CPC meticulously lays down the rules pertaining to pleadings generally. Central to ensuring the integrity of these foundational documents is Rule 15 of Order 6, which mandates the verification of pleadings and, through a significant amendment, now requires an affidavit in support thereof. This article endeavors to provide a comprehensive analysis of Order 6 Rule 15 CPC, delving into its provisions, judicial interpretations, the impact of the affidavit requirement, and its application in various legal contexts, drawing extensively from the provided reference materials and established legal principles in India.
The Mandate of Order 6 Rule 15: Verification of Pleadings
Order 6 Rule 15 CPC, in its current form, outlines the procedural requirements for the verification of every pleading. The rule is structured to ensure that the party filing the pleading takes responsibility for the assertions made therein. As articulated in G.M Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (Supreme Court Of India, 2013), Order 6 Rule 15 CPC reads as follows:
“15. Verification of pleadings.—(1) 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.
(2) The person verifying shall 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.
(3) 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.
(4) The persons verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings.”
Sub-rule (1) identifies who is competent to verify: the party itself, one of the parties if there are multiple, or another person who can satisfy the court of their acquaintance with the facts. Sub-rule (2) is critical as it demands a clear demarcation in the verification clause. The verifier must specify which paragraphs of the pleading are based on their personal knowledge and which are based on information received and believed to be true. Sub-rule (3) deals with the formal aspects of the verification: the signature of the verifier, and the date and place of signing.
It is pertinent to note that the cause title of a plaint or appeal is not considered a part of the "pleading" for the purpose of Order 6 Rule 15 and thus does not require verification (Rukmini Dattatraya Naik And Others… v. Parmanand Lalchand Joshi And Others…, Bombay High Court, 2000). Pleadings essentially refer to the substantive averments, typically contained in numbered paragraphs.
The Affidavit in Support of Pleadings: Order 6 Rule 15(4)
Sub-rule (4) of Order 6 Rule 15 was introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (though its implementation was part of the package of amendments that came into effect with the Amendment Act of 2002). This sub-rule mandates that the person verifying the pleading must also furnish an affidavit in support of their pleadings. The Supreme Court, in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N v. Union Of India (2005 SCC 6 344, Supreme Court Of India, 2005), observed that the inclusion of affidavits with pleadings "imposes an additional responsibility on the deponent to ensure the truthfulness of the statements, thereby enhancing the integrity of pleadings without making them evidentiary." This underscores the legislative intent to infuse a higher degree of solemnity and accountability into the pleading process.
The requirement of an affidavit under Order 6 Rule 15(4) is a general one, applicable to pleadings in civil suits. Its application in specialized contexts, such as election petitions, has also been affirmed. For instance, in G.M Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (Supreme Court Of India, 2013), the Supreme Court considered whether, in addition to the affidavit in Form 25 for corrupt practices, an election petitioner must also file an affidavit under Order 6 Rule 15(4) CPC, and implicitly supported its general applicability. The absence of a proper affidavit supporting annexures that form the basis of a claim, such as a CD in an election petition, can be a significant defect (Ashok S/O Mahadeorao Mankar… v. Rajendra Bhausaheb Mulak…, Bombay High Court, 2010).
Judicial Interpretation and Application
Purpose and Object of Verification
The judiciary has consistently emphasized that the purpose of verification is to fix responsibility for the allegations made in the pleadings and to prevent reckless and irresponsible statements. Verification is crucial for testing the genuineness of allegations and holding petitioners accountable (A.K.K Nambiar v. Union of India (1969) 3 SCC 864, as cited in Regu Mahesh Alias Regu Maheswar Rao v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev And Another, 2004 SCC 1 46). It ensures that the party has read the pleading and understood its contents. In the context of election petitions, which often involve allegations of a quasi-criminal nature, meticulous verification is particularly stressed to ensure the sanctity of the electoral process (Regu Mahesh Alias Regu Maheswar Rao v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev And Another, 2004 SCC 1 46; F.A Sapa And Others v. Singora And Others, 1991 SCC 3 375).
Nature of Verification: Mandatory or Directory? Curability of Defects
A significant body of case law addresses the consequences of defective verification. The general judicial consensus leans towards treating defects in verification as procedural irregularities that are curable, rather than fatal flaws that would automatically lead to the dismissal of the suit or petition. The Supreme Court in Regu Mahesh Alias Regu Maheswar Rao v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev And Another (2004 SCC 1 46), referencing F.A Sapa v. Singora (1991 SCC 3 375), affirmed that defects in verification or affidavits accompanying election petitions are generally curable. An opportunity should be afforded to the party to rectify such defects.
This principle was also echoed in Amichand Udayram v. Pratap Singh Harpal Singh And Ors (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1963), where it was held that defective verification is a mere irregularity and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. However, if the party, despite being given an opportunity, fails or refuses to rectify the defects, or if the defects are so gross as to indicate a lack of bona fides, the court may take a stricter view, potentially leading to the rejection of the pleading or dismissal of the petition (Regu Mahesh Alias Regu Maheswar Rao v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev And Another, 2004 SCC 1 46).
In Capt. Virender Kumar Petitioner v. Shrimati Veena (1969 SCC ONLINE DEL 154, Delhi High Court, 1969), the court found the verification in a Hindu Marriage Act petition defective for not being in accordance with Order 6 Rule 15 CPC (as mandated by Section 20(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) because it did not specify paragraph numbers and did not clearly distinguish between statements made on information/belief and those made on knowledge. The court directed the petitioner to amend and verify it according to law, implying curability.
Distinction between Knowledge and Information/Belief and Disclosure of Source
Order 6 Rule 15(2) explicitly requires the verifier to specify which averments are based on personal knowledge and which are based on information received and believed to be true. This distinction is crucial. Courts have emphasized the need for clear disclosure of information sources, particularly when allegations are based on information rather than direct knowledge (State Of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik AIR 1952 SC 317, as cited in Regu Mahesh Alias Regu Maheswar Rao v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev And Another, 2004 SCC 1 46). Vague verifications lacking clarity on sources can undermine the credibility of the pleadings (Regu Mahesh Alias Regu Maheswar Rao v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev And Another, 2004 SCC 1 46).
However, in Prabhu Narayan v. A.K Srivastava (1975 SCC 3 788, Supreme Court Of India, 1975), the Supreme Court, in the context of an election petition, observed that "disclosure of the source of information a requisite under Order 6 Rule 15(2) CPC" is not explicitly stated in the rule itself for the verification part of the pleading, though it might be relevant for the affidavit or for assessing evidence. The Court noted that decisions under Order 19 Rule 2 (concerning affidavits) might have different considerations. This suggests a nuanced approach, where the stringency of source disclosure might vary depending on the nature of the proceeding and whether the statement is in the verification clause of the pleading itself or in a supporting affidavit detailing particulars of corrupt practice. In F.A Sapa And Others v. Singora And Others (1991 SCC 3 375), it was noted, citing Krishan Chander v. Ram Lal (1973), that failure to disclose sources of information in affidavits (accompanying election petitions) does not necessarily render the petition defective. Despite these nuances, the general expectation, especially for serious allegations or in specific proceedings like election petitions, remains that sources of information should be disclosed for transparency and to enable the opposing party to effectively respond.
Verification in Specific Contexts (e.g., Election Petitions)
The application of Order 6 Rule 15 CPC is particularly significant in election petitions, which are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 83(1)(c) of this Act requires every election petition to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the CPC for the verification of pleadings.
In Regu Mahesh Alias Regu Maheswar Rao v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev And Another (2004 SCC 1 46), the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of an election petition where the verification was found to be vague, lacked clarity on information sources, and contained inconsistencies. The Court emphasized that while defects might be curable, persistent negligence renders the petition untenable. Similarly, in Kana Mandal v. State Of M.P And Others (2010 SCC ONLINE MP 133, Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2010), an election petition was found liable to be dismissed, inter alia, because it was not verified as required under the relevant election rules read with Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. The court specifically noted the requirement of Order 6 Rule 15(4) for an affidavit in support of pleadings.
Conversely, F.A Sapa And Others v. Singora And Others (1991 SCC 3 375) illustrates a more lenient approach where the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to allow amendments to rectify defects in verification in election petitions, emphasizing that minor defects should not lead to dismissal if they can be remedied. This highlights the balance courts strike between procedural rigor and substantive justice.
Consequences of Defective or Absent Verification
As discussed, a defective verification is generally treated as a procedural irregularity that can be cured. Courts usually provide an opportunity to the party to amend the verification. If the defect is not rectified despite such an opportunity, or if there is no verification at all, the consequences can be severe. In Kana Mandal v. State Of M.P And Others (2010 SCC ONLINE MP 133), the absence of proper verification as required by Order 6 Rule 15 was considered a serious lapse.
The failure to comply with the mandate of Order 6 Rule 15, particularly the affidavit requirement under sub-rule (4), can also be detrimental. In Ashok S/O Mahadeorao Mankar… v. Rajendra Bhausaheb Mulak… (Bombay High Court, 2010), the court considered the argument that the absence of proper verification and affidavit under Order 6 Rule 15(4) in support of a CD, which formed the basis of the election petition, was fatal. While the court did not definitively rule on this specific point in the excerpt, it indicates the seriousness with which such omissions are viewed.
The ultimate consequence depends on the nature of the defect, the stage of the proceedings, the conduct of the party, and the specific requirements of the law governing the particular type of case (e.g., stricter compliance in election law).
Conclusion
Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and seriousness of the pleading process in Indian civil litigation. The requirements for verification, including the specification of knowledge versus information and belief, and the subsequent mandate for an affidavit under sub-rule (4), are designed to ensure that parties approach the court with truthful and considered averments. While courts have generally adopted a pragmatic approach, treating defects in verification as curable irregularities, the underlying principle remains that pleadings must be verified conscientiously. The introduction of the affidavit requirement further strengthens this by imposing an additional layer of accountability on the deponent. Adherence to Order 6 Rule 15 is not merely a technical formality but a substantive safeguard that contributes to the fair and efficient administration of justice, preventing frivolous claims and ensuring that litigation proceeds on a foundation of responsibly asserted facts.