Sreenath Banerjee vs East Indian Railway Company on 1 December, 1894

Last Updated on

Calcutta High Court
Sreenath Banerjee vs East Indian Railway Company on 1 December, 1894
Equivalent citations: (1895) ILR 22 Cal 268
Author: Sale
Bench: Sale


Sale, J.

1. This is an application for admission of written statements on behalf of the East Indian Railway Company in four suits instituted against the Company by various parties. These written statements purport to be signed, “The East Indian Railway Company, by their constituted Attorney and Agent Richard Gardiner,” and in the verification, which purports to be signed “Richard Gardiner,” he is described as the “Agent of the defendant Company.” That; the East Indian Railway Company is a Corporation appears from the title of the plaint in each suit. This therefore may be taken to be an admitted fact. That being so, Section 435 of the Civil Procedure Code becomes applicable. Under that section, in a suit by the East Indian Railway Company, the plaint may be verified by any Director, Secretary or other principal officer of the Company able to depose to the facts of the case. This provision is also applicable to a written statement required to be filed by the defendant Company, being made so applicable by Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. As therefore the law itself enables a principal officer of a Corporation to verify a plaint or a written statement, it is not, in my opinion, necessary that permission for that purpose should be obtained, but it should be shown, in cases to which Section 435 applies, that the person purporting to verify a written statement is a principal officer of the defendant Company or Corporation, and is able to depose to the facts of the case. If a plaint, or a written statement, contains a statement to that effect, the verification in the usual form would probably be sufficient. There is no such statement appearing in the written statements now presented for admission. The description in the verification of Richard Gardiner, as Agent of the defendant Company, is itself not verified, nor, if that description alone wore verified, could it be assumed that he was a principal officer of the defendant Company and able to depose to the facts of the case. That evidence in the case of these written statements must therefore be supplied by affidavit, and on that being done, the written statements may be presented to the Registrar for admission. The provision in the Code, relating to verification of written statements, being intended for the protection of the plaintiffs, their observance may, I think, be waived by the plaintiffs. If, therefore, the plaintiffs are prepared to waive all objections to the sufficiency of the verification of the written statements, further evidence of the nature indicated may be dispensed with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *