Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Along with the suit the plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 being IA No. 6240/2005 seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. According to the defendants this application is not verified in accordance with the requirement of Rule 2 of Order 33 which contemplates that the application should be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for signing and verification of pleadings. For signing and verification of the pleadings the learned senior counsel for the defendants, Mr. Lekhi has relied on Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplating that the pleadings has to 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. According to the learned senior counsel,since the application under Order 33 to sue as an indigent person has not been filed in compliance with law by the plaintiffs, the application is liable to be rejected under Order 33 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has also been contended that the affidavit filed with the application under Order 33 will not be valid for the amendment sought in the plaint and consequently the amendment cannot be allowed. The learned senior counsel has also emphasized relying on 1976(2) SCR 246 at page 257 that no material facts have been given by the plaintiffs in support of their claim for maintenance of Rs.1.5 lakhs per month and, therefore, the proposed amendment should not be allowed.

9. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, Ms. Geeta Luthra has countered the pleas of the learned senior counsel for the defendants Mr. Lekhi contending that paras 18, 20, 34 and 40 of the plaint disclose cause of action and documents filed by the plaintiffs also show the cause of action in favor of plaintiffs and amendment has been sought in the plaint incorporating the pleas regarding the fact that the plaintiffs are indigent persons and seek to sue as indigent person and the plaint has been verified properly and is also supported by an affidavit and the list of properties of the plaintiffs are given in Schedule A which Schedule has also been verified. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs has also relied on Jethu Ram Rice Mill v. Ashok Kumar Verma and Anr. to contend that Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not warrant technical but only proper compliance and an application along with the copy of the plaint should be deemed as properly framed which is supported by an affidavit. In case the annexed plaint is duly verified and the annexed Schedule of properties with the value thereof have also been duly verified as true by the applicants, in such circumstances it should be deemed that it has been properly framed and duly verified. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs very emphatically contended that Order 33 does not warrant a meticulous hyper technical interpretation against a pauper applicant but only proper and substantial compliance by him.

12. It has been held that an application filed with a copy of the plaint is also a properly framed application though the particulars of the plaint are not specifically incorporated in the application. An application under the Code of Civil Procedure is normally not to be verified but Order 33 contemplates that the application should be verified as it is also to contain particulars required in regard to plaint in the suit. In case the application contains particulars required in regard to plaint in suit then such an application, in compliance with Order 33 Rule 2, should be verified but where along with an application a plaint is filed separately which contains the particulars of the plaint with verification, such an application may not require verification as it will be too technical an interpretation of the rule. In any case the rule is directory and not mandatory as has been held by a Division Bench of A.P High Court in Bommineni Laxmi Devamma (Supra) as it relates to procedure and in a welfare state the poverty should not come in the way of person for enjoyment of his right to sue as an indigent person and a beneficial provision like Order 33 cannot be negated on such hyper technical interpretations. The object behind Order 33 Rule 2 for verification of the application is that the facts which are to be pleaded in the plaint,if are pleaded in the application, then they should be properly verified, however, if the plaint is filed separately along with an application and the facts stated in the plaint have been verified then the application even though it is not verified shall be maintainable and cannot be rejected under Order 33 Rule 5 as contended by the learned Counsel, Mr.Lekhi for the defendants.

19. This also can not be disputed that the amendment proposed to the plaint which is filed along with the application to sue as indigent persons are material and relevant for the determination of real controversies between the parties. The application to sue as indigent person is maintainable though it is not verified because the particulars of plaint/pleadings have not been incorporated in the application but a separate plaint has been filed which has also been verified and on this ground the amendment proposed to the plaint can not be declined. The suit is still at a pretrial stage, as even the indigent status of the plaintiffs has not yet been determined. No prejudice shall also be caused to the defendants in the facts and circumstances, if the amendment sought by the plaintiffs is allowed.