Shanti Swaroop Dhavan, J. - (1.)This is a second appeal from the decree of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi reversing that of the Munsif City, Varanasi and decreeing the Plaintiff Respondents' suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,442/ - as compensation for damages to a consignment of mangoes. The Appellant is the Union of India as the owner of the Eastern and Northern Railways. The Plaintiff Respondent Parshottam Das alleged in his plaint that he is a karta of a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law; that the family carries on business under the name and style Parshottam Das Magan Lal; that in the course of business the Plaintiff got a consignment of 200 baskets of Langda mangoes despatched from Raj Mahal railway station for delivery to the Plaintiff at Kashi station; that the Plaintiff was the consignee of the goods; that the consignment was (to be)delivered on 5 -6 -1956 but not delivered to the Plaintiff till the close of the day on 9th of June; that the mangoes were found rotten and unfit for human consumption; that this damage was due to the wilful misconduct and negligence of the Railway Administration and their staff. The Plaintiff after serving the necessary notices Under Sec. 77 of the Rail ways Act and Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 2,442/ - from the Railway.
(2.)The Defendant resisted the suit and denied all liability. In view of the nature of the defence taken during the trial and the grounds pressed in appeal before me, it is necessary to examine the contents of the written statement filed in this case. It was verified by the counsel for the Railway, Sri S.K. Basu Advocate. The verification is in these terms, "I, S.K. Basu Advocate do hereby verify that contents of paras 1 to 19 of this written statement are based on instructions from official records which I believe to be true. Verified this 13th day of January, 1958 in the civil court compound Varanasi. S.K. Basu 13 -1 -1958." I do not know the reasons which induced Mr. S.K. Basu to take upon himself the burden of verifying the written statement filed by a client. I shall make no comment on his conduct as I am informed that he is dead. But I am constrained to observe that it was not proper for the Appellant Union of India to ask its counsel to verify its pleadings in defence. The Railway Department is not an ordinary litigant. It has at its disposal a team of able counsels who are expected to know the law governing the verification of pleadings. The verification of the written statement by counsel for the Railway is all the more surprising in view of the fact that the Vakalathami was also signed by a Railway Inspector who was expected to know all the relevant facts and could have verified the statement.
(3.)The verification itself is defective and violates the provisions of Rule 15 of Order 6 Code of Civil Procedure. That rule requires that "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." It further requires "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." Thus the law requires that a pleading should be verified ordinarily by the party, but it may be verified by any other person provided it is "proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the person is acquainted with the facts of the case." In the present case there is nothing on record to indicate that it was proved to the satisfaction of the trial court that Mr. S.K. Basu was acquainted with the facts of the case. He stated in the verification paragraph that it was "based on instructions from official records which I believe to be true". This kind of verification can be easily made by any counsel engaged in a case and if permitted will reduce the rule governing verification to be a farce. Counsel for the railway relied on Rule 1 of Order XXVII, Code of Civil Procedure which provides that in a suit by or against the Government the plaint or the written statement may be verified by any person appointed by the government to sign it. He pointed out that Mr. S.K. Basu had been appointed by the Union Government and was competent to verify the written statement. There are two short answers to this argument First, Rule 1 of Order 27 Code of Civil Procedure expressly enjoins that the plaint or written statement shall be verified by any person "who is acquainted with the facts of the case" and this does not include a counsel who can only act on instructions. The word 'acquainted' contemplates personal acquaintance or at any rate something more than mere instructions received by counsel from a client. Secondly, the power of attorney filed by Mr. S.K. Basu did not expressly confer on him the power to verify pleadings on behalf of the railway. The verification of the written statement in this case must therefore be held to be invalid.