THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3545 of 2006 Dated: 15-7-2010 Oral order: This is a defendant’s revision directed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni dated 11-7-2006 in I.A.No. 911 of 2006 in O.S.No. 289 of 2003. The 1st respondent herein initially filed the plaint (after his death respondents 2 to 4 were impleaded as plaintiffs, as L.Rs. of the deceased husband), for recovery of the suit amount due under a promissory note. The suit pronote was executed on 1-8-1998. It is further pleaded that the defendant made part payment of Rs.3000/- on 18-1-2000 towards interest and endorsed on the back of the suit promissory note. As there was a denial to repay despite issue of a lawyer’s notice dated 3-9-2002, the suit is filed for recovery of amount. At no point of time, in the plaint preceding the verification as required under Order VI Rule 15 CPC is it pleaded that as the suit promissory note was lost and a police complaint was lodged in the Adoni I Town Police Station, the suit is being filed on the basis of Xerox copies of the promissory note. After the verification para, however, above the signature of the counsel for the plaintiff, a note is appended, which reads as under: “The plaintiff submits that after issuing the lawyer’s notice he lost the promissory notes on 16-1-2003 in Shroff Bazar, Adoni while he was going to Xerox center for taking Xerox copies of the pronotes. Hence the pronotes are not filed along with plaint. A necessary complaint is lodged police I Town P.S. Adoni about the same and certificate issued by the I Town P.S. is filed herewith.” In the circumstances, the revision petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No. 911 of 2006 under Order XIII Rule 3 read with 151 CPC to reject the documents marked as Exs.A1 and A2 (asserted to be Xerox copies of the suit pronotes and the endorsements thereon) as they are inadmissible in evidence. In the affidavit accompanying I.A.No. 911 of 2006, the revision petitioner specifically pleaded that there was no pleading with regard to loss of the suit pronotes. However, the court below in rejecting I.A.No. 911 of 2006 construed the note appearing after the verification as part of the plaint as part of the plaint pleadings. Order VI Rule 15 CPC enjoins that every pleading shall be verified 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; the person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleadings, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true; 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; and the person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings. It is therefore, only the portion of the plaint preceding the verification that constitutes the pleading. What follows the verification is not a constituent part of the plaint plea. As the ‘note’ appears after the verification, it is not a part of the plea. In the absence of any plea duly verified as required under Order VI Rule 15 CPC, that the alleged suit pronotes along with the alleged endorsement thereon were lost and a police complaint was filed to that effect, Exs.A1 and A2, since they are mere Xerox copies cannot be construed as secondary evidence, there being no plea as to the unavailability of the primary evidence. Exs.A1 and A2 ought not to have been entertained. On the aforesaid reasons, the order of the court below is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. I.A.No. 911 of 2006 is allowed. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 15th July, 2010. GRR