The Bombay High Court, in an order passed by Justice Gauri Godse, held that replacing pages in a notarised plaint or serving modified copies upon defendants amounts to tampering with court records and original pleadings. Addressing major procedural lapses and unauthorized alterations in a commercial suit, the Court accepted the unconditional apologies of the plaintiff, the advocate on record, and the notary public, but imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on each of them for gross negligence and improper conduct during the filing and removal of office objections.
Background of the Case
The issue came to light during a hearing on January 12, 2026, in a commercial suit filed by Villayati Ram Mittal against the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and other defendants. Counsel for Defendant No. 3 informed the Court that the claim in the suit was below Rs. 100 Crores and did not fall within the assignment of the bench.
Upon scrutiny, Justice Godse noted glaring discrepancies:
- The prayer clause in the Court’s official copy claimed damages of Rs. 195 Crores, whereas the statement of claim mentioned Rs. 84,69,70,368/-.
- The last page of the plaint (page 94) was dated December 10, 2018, while the verification clause on page 95 was notarised on December 8, 2018.
- Advocates for all parties, including the plaintiff, stated that the copies of the plaint served upon the defendants contained a different prayer clause than the copy in the Court record.
In response, the Court directed the advocate who filed the suit and the plaintiff’s partner who verified the plaint to submit personal affidavits explaining the discrepancies.
Explanations Submitted by the Parties and Notary
In her affidavit dated April 16, 2026, the advocate on record stated that while curing office objections raised by the Registry, she carried out hand-written corrections on page 92 and on the verification clause at page 95. She communicated this telephonically to the plaintiff’s office staff. However, the staff misinterpreted the instruction and retyped page 92 in their office copy, altering the monetary figure in the prayer clause. The advocate stated that photocopies of this altered office copy were served on the defendants, describing the lapse as an inadvertent, bona fide error without intent to mislead the Court.
The plaintiff’s partner filed a separate affidavit explaining that their clerk, Mr. Mukesh Sharma, took the plaint for photocopying while notary Mr. Ranjit Singh was notarising the document on December 8, 2018. Following the telephone call from the advocate, the clerk retyped page 92 with the altered amount, replaced the page in the office copy, and made photocopies for service upon the defendants.
The notary public filed an affidavit dated July 3, 2026, explaining that he had notarised the original three-volume plaint on December 8, 2018. A few days later, the clerk approached his office claiming that one page (page 92) had been missed during stamping. In good faith, the notary placed his round seal on page 92, unaware that the page had been retyped and replaced.
In subsequent affidavits filed in July 2026, the plaintiff, the advocate on record, and the notary public tendered unconditional apologies and pledged to remain vigilant in the future.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
To examine the procedural rules governing corrections in pleadings, the Court called for a report from the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The report highlighted an Office Order dated October 31, 2018, Practice Note No. 58, and Chapter IV of the High Court Original Side (OS) Rules.
The Court noted that under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 42 of the OS Rules, any alteration, interlineation, or erasure in a plaint must be authenticated by the initials of the designated court officer. Furthermore, the Office Order dated October 31, 2018, strictly mandates a written application, formal permission from the officer, specific endorsements with counter-signatures on the pleadings, and an undertaking from the advocate to serve corrected copies on the opposing side. No such procedure was followed in this case.
Justice Godse observed that retyping a page and affixing a notary stamp to substitute it in served copies or office copies constitutes tampering. The Court emphasized the solemn nature of a notary’s statutory duty under Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952, and the Notaries Rules, 1956:
“Thus, when the document is to be notarised, it is on solemn affirmation in view of the oath administered by the Notary. Once the oath is administered and the Notary affixes the stamp on it, even the Notary is not permitted to replace any page. If the Notary or any party replaces the page, such act would amount to tampering with the original document.”
The Court further stated:
“Replacing the page to show that it forms part of the notarised pleadings filed in the court would also amount to tampering with the original pleadings served upon the defendants.”
Regarding the conduct of the notary, the Court remarked:
“Such conduct of the Notary would also amount to tampering with the original pleading which was notarised by him and accordingly entered in his notarial register. Such conduct on the part of the Notary needs to be deprecated. If such conduct is let off, it will embolden the parties and the Notary to tamper with the original pleadings or documents affirmed after administering an oath by the concerned Notary.”
The judgment cited a previous order of the High Court dated December 16, 2025 (in Interim Application No. 7270 of 2025 in Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1683 of 2023), which dealt with similar casual notarisation practices:
“It is shocking to note the manner in which the application was sought to be notarised and e-filed. It is grossly inappropriate for the Notary to affix his seal and stamp to the document/affidavit without first verifying it and without the deponent signing it. Under the Notaries Act, 1952, the function of notaries is to solemnise and administer oaths and verify documents and affidavits as contemplated under Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952. The duly notarised documents are presumed genuine, which may affect the rights of the parties concerned. The Notary, therefore, cannot act casually. Any casual or negligent act by the Notary cannot be acceptable and cannot be taken lightly. Such an act of the Notary of affixing the seal and his signature on the affidavit without the deponent signing it in the presence of the Notary is illegal and not in accordance with the law. Such acts can have serious repercussions. Hence, the unconditional apology tendered by the concerned Notary cannot be accepted. Learned Prothonotary and Senior Master shall forward this order to the learned Principal Secretary of the Law and Justice Department of the Government of India for appropriate action as contemplated under the Notaries Act, 1952 and the rules framed thereunder”
Addressing the responsibility of litigants and advocates, Justice Godse observed:
“No party can be permitted to tamper with the pleadings and documents in such a manner. The conduct of the advocate shows complete negligence in handling the filing and removal of office objections.”
“The advocate on record has not even bothered to maintain her own office copy as per the original pleadings filed and corrected. Such conduct cannot be let off only by accepting an apology and an undertaking.”
Final Decision
The High Court accepted the apologies and undertakings tendered by the plaintiff, the advocate on record, and the notary public, but held that their conduct required strict penalization to prevent recurrence:
- Costs Imposed: The plaintiff, the advocate on record, and the notary public were ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000 each (totaling Rs. 1,50,000) to the “High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai” within four weeks.
- Directions to Union Government: A copy of the order will be forwarded to the Deputy Legal Adviser, Notary Cell, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, to issue necessary guidelines and corrective measures for notaries.
- Circulation & Procedural Reforms: The Prothonotary and Senior Master was directed to circulate the order among all Notaries Public and to initiate steps for framing rules, practice notes, or amendments to the Original Side Rules governing the removal of office objections.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on August 31, 2026.
Case Title: Villayati Ram Mittal vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority through the Chief Executive Officer
Case No.: Commercial Suit No. 173 of 2019 with Interim Application (L) No. 20144 of 2026
Bench: Justice Gauri Godse
Date: 28th July 2026
