1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.197 of 2010 Shri Mohandas Narayandas Ramrakhiyani .. Petitioner v/s. Shri Rajesh Nanikram Vadhrya & ors. .. Respondents Mr.Satish B. Patil for Petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for Res.No.2. Mr.L.M.Acharya with Mrs.Prabha Badadase for Res.No.1. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 22nd January, 2010 P.C. : 1.Heard the learned Advocates for parties. 2.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.The Petitioner has been elected as a Corporator in a general election in February 2007. His election is sought to be challenged. The Petitioner contends that that Petition does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 (the Rules). His main challenge is to the filing of the Petition in the form provided in Rule 6(4) of the Rules. He contends 2 that since that mandatory rule has not been followed, the Commissioner was required to dismiss the Petition and intimate him accordingly under Rule 7(2) of the Rules. The Commissioner has instead held the Petition to be maintainable and kept the Petition for further hearing under his order dated 21.11.2009 which is impugned. 4.Rule 6(4) of the Rules requires every Petition and Annextures to be verified and signed. It runs thus:- 6. References to be by petitions. (1) . . . . (2) . . . . (3) . . . . (4) Every petition and any annexture thereto shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) for the verification of pleadings. 5.If these provisions are not complied, the Commissioner is required to dismiss the Petition under Rule 7(2), which runs thus:- 3 7. Procedure. (1) . . . . (2) If the petition does not comply with the requirements of rule 6, the Commissioner, as the case may be, Collector shall dismiss the petition and intimate the petitioner accordingly. 6.The Petition and the Annextures must comply with the provisions of Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order VI Rule 15 runs thus:- 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 4 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 person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings. The aforesaid Rule speaks about verification of pleadings only. It does not speak about verification of documents. 7.Where the pleading has to be verified and by whom is stated in sub-Rule (1)  it has to be verified at the foot of the pleading. It has to be verified by one of the parties or by a party who knows the facts of the case e.g. the Constituted Attorney of the party filing the pleading. How it has to be verified is mentioned in sub-Clause (2). The verifier has to specify with reference to each of the numbered paragraphs what is true to his own knowledge and what is true to the information that he has received and which he believes to be true. This sub-rule requires the paragraphs to be specified unless of course the entire Petition would be true to the 5 knowledge of the verifier or the entire Petition would be true upon the information received by the Petitioner which he believed to be true. Sub-paragraph (3) requires when and where the pleading has to be verified and requires the signature of the verifier. Hence it has to be signed, dated and must show the place where it is signed and dated. Sub-clause (4), which is an amendment incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002, requires an act further to the verification set out in sub-Rules (1), (2) and (3) of Order 6 Rule 15. This is denoted by the word also . Consequently, sub-Rule (4) requires what the verifier has also to do  he has also to furnish an Affidavit in support of the pleadings. 8.An Affidavit is a statement of facts on oath. If a person makes a statement of facts on oath, it goes without saying that he knows the facts which he states on oath. If he does not personally know those facts which he states on oath those facts would remain hearsay unless the person, who knows the facts on oath, files a further Affidavit. The Affidavit-in-support of the pleadings would, therefore, confirm that what is mentioned in the pleadings is known to the affiant to 6 his own knowledge as it is required to be a truthful statement made on oath. 9.A reading of Order 6 Rule 15, therefore, clearly shows that sub-Rules (1), (2) and (3) are the rules relating to verification of pleadings and sub-Rule (4) is the rule relating to the further requirement in support of the pleadings. 10.The aforesaid Rule 6(4) requires the Petitioner to sign and verify the pleadings as per the aforesaid provisions. It further requires the Petitioner to sign and verify the annextures to the pleadings. This signing and verification is not as per the Code of Civil Procedure since neither Order 6 Rule 15 shows how an annexture, which is a document, is to be signed and verified, nor is there any provision in the CPC shown which lays down the rules for signing and verifying a document annexed to the pleadings. 11.It would, therefore, have to be seen whether the Petition is signed and verified and whether the annexures to the Petition which are 3 in number are signed and verified. The Petition is to be signed and verified only and strictly as per the aforesaid provisions contained in Order VI Rule 15 and the annextures to the Petition would have to be signed and 7 verified, though not as in the CPC itself. 12.The record of the Petition has been produced before this Court. The Petition runs over 3 pages. Each page is signed by the Petitioner in the margin. The last page is signed by the Petitioner in the margin which is above the sub-title VERIFICATION as well as at the foot of the verification clause. It is dated. It shows the place of verification being Mumbai. The verification clause itself shows that the Petitioner has stated on solemn affirmation that what is stated in the foregoing paragraphs are the facts true to the best of his own knowledge, information and belief and what is stated in paragraph 7 are his humble prayers and he believes each of these prayers to be true and correct and, therefore, verifies the same. The verification clause runs thus:- VERIFICATION I, RAJESH NANIKRAM VADHRYA, the Petitioner abovenamed, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that what is stated in the foregoing paragraphs are facts true to the best of my own knowledge, information and belief and what is stated in paragraph-7 are my humble prayers which I believe the 8 same to be true and correct and therefore, I verify the same. Solemnly affirmed at MUMBAI, this day of Marc. 2007 Deponent Advocate for the Petitioner. 13. It is seen that the entire of the Petitioner s Petition is true to his own knowledge, information and belief. Of course, the Petitioner would be cross-examined on this aspect, if that is so required. 14. It is seen that the aforesaid verification of the Petitioner s Petition (pleading) shows who has verified it as per sub-clause (1) above. The fact that it is verified with reference to the numbered paragraphs, showing the Petitioner s knowledge, information and belief as per sub- clause (2) above and the fact that it is signed by the Petitioner as the verifier along with the date and place. The compliance with Order VI Rule 15, sub-Rules (1), (2) and (3) which deal with verification of pleadings is, therefore, not only 9 sufficient compliance but complete compliance. 15. The Petitioner has annexed 3 documents to his Petition. These are the annextures. The Petitioner has stated that these were true copies and signed against that endorsement verifying that the document is a true copy of the original document. He has signed below such endorsement and specified that he was the Petitioner. The Petitioner s Advocate has also similarly endorsed that the document is a true copy and verified that it was a true copy signed at the foot of such endorsement and specified that that signature is the signature of the Advocate of the Petitioner. 16. A document is different from a pleading. A pleading is a concise statement of facts. These facts are derived from the knowledge, information and belief of the person who signs the pleadings. Consequently, the requirement of Order VI Rule 15, by its very reading, shows that it applies to pleadings and pleadings are required to be verified as stated in Order 6 Rule 15, sub-Rules (1), (2) and (3). 17. A document is quite the contrary. An 10 original document is required to be produced and proved by the person who seeks to prove it. A copy of that document is required to be annexed to the pleading so that the other party is put to notice of that document and meets the case as is sought to be made out in the pleadings upon reference to and reliance upon such document. When a copy is produced, the person producing the copy has to verify that it is the correct copy of the original. 18. The meaning of the word verify in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Indian Edition, 11th Revised Edition at page 1605 is :- (i) Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate or justified. (ii) Swear to or support (a statement) by affidavit. So far as a document is concerned, it can, therefore, be verified by stating that it is true, by stating that it is accurate, or by stating that it is justified. The endorsement true copy on a document, therefore, is the verification of the document. The verifier verifies that that is the true copy of the original document. At the time 11 the pleading is filed, no more is required to be done. The party may rely upon any document which is a true and accurate document. Whether or not he can prove that document and whatever that may flow from that document would be a matter of evidence which would be considered in each case. A fact can be verified by swearing that fact upon an Affidavit. An Affidavit is a statement of facts made on oath. It cannot be verified by stating that it is true, it has to be sworn or similarly affirmed to be true. Consequently, a document can be verified by mode No.(i) stated above; facts can be verified by mode No.(ii) stated above. 19. Respondent No.1 has verified his Petition strictly as per the CPC. Respondent No.1 has also verified his documents as per the true meaning of the term verification since no further mode of verification of the document is set out in the Code. The Petitioner s Advocate contends that the rules are mandatory. Respondent No.1 has, therefore, fully complied with the aforesaid rules and has carried out the act of verification in the manner provided by the rules. 12 20. This verification is considered by the Regional Director and Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order. He has considered that the verification by Respondent No.1 is proper and held the Petition to be maintainable. 21. The Petitioner s Advocate relied upon a judgment in the case of Mirza Kadir Baig Rasul Baig vs. District Collector & ors., 2003 (4) Bombay C.R. 672 in which Rule 6(4) has been considered. Since it was held that, though mandatory, it has not been complied, by the Collector under Rule 7(3) of the aforesaid Rules, the Collector s order has been set aside. In that case the learned Single Judge of this Court found that the Petition was not verified. The learned Judge found that the documents are not signed or verified in the manner provided in Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC. The judgment does not show whether the documents were verified to be true copies. The CPC does not show how the documents are to be signed or verified. In this case, however, the record shows that the documents are verified as true copies and I find that that verification is correct and adequate. No more is required to be 13 done at the time the Petition is filed. 22. The Petitioner s Advocate also relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2007(6) Bombay C.R. 214. In that case what are the documents has been specified. We may take it that each of the 3 Annextures in the Petition are documents required to be verified. The penultimate paragraph of that judgment lays down that the documents are required to be verified. The Petitioner has to be satisfied of the correctness of the contents of the documents and to claim that the contents are true to his belief, but that need not be to his personal knowledge. That observation runs thus:- .... and, therefore, it is in the fitness to interpret that the petitioner will have to undertake a responsibility satisfying and thereafter verifying the correctness of the contents in the documents accompanying the petition. It will be open for the petitioner to claim that the contents are true to his belief and it is not necessary that for every document, he should be able to assert correctness on the basis of personal 14 knowledge. 23. Consequently, so far as the verification of the documents is concerned, stating that the documents are a true copy is verifying its correctness that the endorsement true copy implicitly shows that the Petitioner believes that it is a true copy. In fact, the endorsement true copy also shows that the Petitioner knows it is the true copy of the original. Such verification is, therefore, complete and proper. 24. It is consequently seen that Respondent No.1 has correctly verified and signed his pleadings and documents annexed thereto. The exception taken by the Petitioner to such procedure is incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order which rejects such a contention and holds that the Petition of Respondent No.1 is maintainable is not only not perverse but is correct. The Collector has performed his duties as set out in Rule 7(2) in seeing whether the Petition complies with the requirements of Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC and has kept the Petition for hearing. The order need not be interfered with. 15 25. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged. 26. The Petitioner s Advocate applies for stay of this order for 4 weeks. The Election Petition cannot be stayed. Hence the application for stay is rejected. The Petitioner may be entitled to challenge this aspect as a question of law pending the Petition as also upon the disposal of the Petition. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)