The Delhi High Court has ruled that the failure to file a ‘Statement of Truth’ and attest each page of pleadings in a commercial suit—as mandated by Order VI Rule 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)—is a curable procedural defect. The Court held that such an omission should not result in the dismissal of a suit that has already been adjudicated on its merits through a full trial.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan set aside a trial court judgment that had dismissed a recovery suit solely on these procedural grounds, despite finding the plaintiff entitled to the principal amount.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Ms. Shashi Garg (proprietor of M/s Garg Papers), filed a recovery suit for ₹45,35,025 against the respondent, Ms. Renu Garg (now represented by legal heirs). The dispute arose from the non-payment for craft paper supplied on credit. The plaintiff maintained a running account and presented 12 cheques issued by the defendant in May 2017 to discharge the liability, most of which were dishonored due to “insufficient funds” or “account closed.”
The suit was initially filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC but was subsequently converted into a commercial suit.
The Trial Court’s Findings
The Learned District Judge (LDJ), Central District, Tis Hazari Court, framed five issues. On merits (Issues 3 and 4), the LDJ meticulously examined the ledger and invoices, concluding that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to recover a principal sum of ₹29,64,404 plus 18% interest.
However, on the issue of maintainability (Issue 2), the LDJ dismissed the suit, holding that the pleadings were liable to be struck off for non-compliance with Order VI Rule 15A CPC. The trial court relied on the Division Bench judgment in M/s. AV Industries v. M/s. NEON Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (RFA (Comm) No. 2/2021) to justify the dismissal.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant’s counsel contended that while an application to cure the defect had not been filed, the plaintiff was willing to do so if given the opportunity. It was highlighted that the defect arose because the suit was originally a summary suit and only later converted to a commercial one.
The Respondent’s counsel argued that the plaintiff was given sufficient opportunity to cure the defect before the trial stage and failed to do so. They maintained that the trial court’s judgment was in strict compliance with the precedent set in M/s. AV Industries.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The High Court emphasized that procedural law is intended to serve the ends of justice and should not be used to defeat substantial rights. The Bench observed:
“It is trite that procedural law, is merely a handmaid of justice, and as such a defect of form, unless it goes to the root of jurisdiction or causes irremediable prejudice, does not convince the conscience of this Court to eclipse the substantial rights of the party and consequently its adjudication.”
The Court noted that the dispute had been “fully crystallised and adjudicated on evidence,” including cross-examination and scrutiny of documents. Dismissing the suit at that stage for a curable defect would “amount to elevating procedure over substance.”
Regarding the mandatory nature of Order VI Rule 15A, the Bench pointed out that Sub-rule (5) uses the word ‘may,’ which confers discretionary power upon the Court regarding the striking out of pleadings. The Court distinguished the M/s. AV Industries case, noting it involved an ex-parte decree where no undertaking to cure the defect was given.
The Bench concluded:
“The omission to file a Statement of Truth, though a serious procedural irregularity, remains a defect capable of rectification. Notably, the said defect… neither strike at the very jurisdiction of the Court nor does it render the proceedings void ab initio.”
Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and granted the plaintiff four weeks to file an application to comply with Order VI Rule 15A CPC. Upon compliance, the District Judge has been directed to pass a fresh decree in accordance with the prior findings on the merits of the recovery claim and to determine the interest entitlement.
- Case Title: Ms. Shashi Garg v. Ms. Renu Garg (Since Deceased) through her LRs.
- Case No: RFA (COMM) 17/2024
