IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4968 of 2008(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.M.MUHAMMADALI, PADIYATH VEETTIL, EDAVILANGU KARA, KODUNGALLORE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT: ---------------------- V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.SANKUNNI, RAMARADHA NILAYATHIL, N.H.BYE-PASS, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI. BY SR.ADV. SRI. V. CHITHAMBARESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 4968 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred to set aside Ext.P7 order in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and other ancillary reliefs. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the non-verification of the pleadings as contemplated under Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure as well as Order 6 Rule 14 CPC. The Court below permitted the plaintiff to verify the pleadings and it has been done before the Sheristadhar of that Court. The Court below held that such a requirement under the CPC is only directory and not mandatory and that it is a curable defect and therefore granted permission for incorporating the verification of the pleadings. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that it is a matter that has to be considered at a later stage before appropriate forum and therefore he mainly argues on W.P.C 4968 OF 2008 -:2:- the question whether the present verification done is in terms of the mandate of the provisions and whether it is proper and whether it will result in throwing out the plaint on the ground of non-compliance as envisaged under Section 26 or Order 6 Rule 14 CPC. 3. I am informed that the matter has been posted for disposal. The learned counsel had extracted the amendment carried out to the plaint, that is, by incorporation of the verification. Whether it is sufficient or whether it is in compliance with the requirements are all matters which the Court below can consider and pass appropriate orders. Therefore I leave open the larger question involved but direct the Court below to hear the point whether verification made in the plaint as per the directions of the Court is proper or not and then dispose of the suit in accordance with law. It may also consider about the correctness of the affidavit, i.e., whether it is as required by the Section and the Court can consider it along with the suit when it takes up the matter for W.P.C 4968 OF 2008 -:3:- judgment. If the hearing is already over the Court may reopen the case and address itself to this point after hearing both sides. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-