SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.----Succinctly , a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction was instituted on behalf of the petitioner . The respondents Nos.2, 7, predecessor of the respondents Nos.8 to 16 and respondent No.18 appeared in the Court and submitted their consenting written statement. The respondents Nos.19 and 20 submitted their contesting written statements whereas respondents Nos.1, 3 to 6 and 17 were proceeded against ex parte. However , during pendency of the suit, the respondent No.10, who had already submitted consenting written statement, moved an application for summoning the petitioner/plaintif f. The petitioner voluntarily appeared in the learned trial Court and recorded his statement on 10.10.2019 and above-said application was dismissed being infructuous, suit was fixed for arguments on maintainability of the suit in light of the statement of the petitioner , which was subsequently dismissed vide impugned order and decree dated 18.11.2019 by the learned trial Court and appeal there against was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.09.2020; hence, the instant civil revision.
2. Heard.
3. Rule 15 of Order VI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads: `15. Verification of pleadings. ---(1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation 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 pleadings, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received 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.'
Clause 4 of Chapter I, Part-C of V olume 1 of the High Court Rules and Orders provides that: `4. Singing and verification. ----The plaint must be signed by the plaint iff, or, if by reason of absence or other good cause the plaintif f is unable to sing it, by his duly authorized agent. It must also be signed by the plaintif f's pleader (if any) and be verified by the plaintif f, or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
The personal attendance of the plaintiff in Court for the purpose of verification is unnecessary . The verification must, however , be signed by the person making it.'
Clause 9 of Chapter I, Part-C of Volume 1 of the High Court Rules and Orders is with regard to suits germane to Land, which reads: `9. Land suits. - If the plaint relates to agricultural land and the plaintiff is illiterate, it should be scrutinized with special care, according to the following directions:-
(i) The Presiding Officer shall ascertain by careful examination of the plaintiff or his agent, whether the prayer in the plaint corresponds in all particulars with the exact relief which the plaintiff orally describes himself as seeking. If the oral statements of the plaintiff or his agen t are at variance with the written descriptio n of his claim, the plaintiff shall, in his or his agent's presence, be returne d for amendment, and no amended plaint should be accepted until the Court is satisfied that it correctly expresses' the claim which the plaintiff desires to establish.
(ii) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.'
Apart from the above provisions of law, Rule 2 of Order X, Code of Civil Procedur e, 1908 is also relevant, for the purpose of the instant case, which reads:- `2. Oral examination of the party or companion of party . -- At the first hearing of the suit, or at any subsequent hearing, any party appearing in person or present in Court, or any person able to answer any material question relating to the suit by whom such party or his pleader is accompanied, shall be examined orally by the Court; and the Court may , if it thinks fit, put in the course of such examination questions suggested by either party .'
A bare reading of the above provision of law makes it vivid that a person verifies the pleadings on oath or on solemn affirmation. In this case, when the petitioner being plaintif f appears before the learned trial Court, he recorded his statement to the effect that his relatives instituted the suit after obtaining his signatures, meaning thereby he neither dictated the plaint nor imparted facts of the case to his alleged counsel nor the learned counsel obtained his signatures on the plaint and under verification statement after reading out contents of the plaint, therefore, the alleged verification, if any, made by him of the plaint, was nothing but without, knowing the contents of the plaint, rather it was not known to him as per his stance. In this scenario, the learned appellate Court has rightly observed drat when a person says before a Court of law that his relatives got instituted suit by obtaining his signatures and he has no knowledge about contents of the case, then what would be fate of the case if evidence of plaintif f is recorded especially when he is not acquainted with the facts of the case and his verification is not as per requirement of law. As such, no illegality and irregularity has been committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned order , judgment and decrees rather vested jurisdiction has rightly been exercised.
4. The crux of the discussion above is that the civil revision in hand comes to naught, hence same stands dismissed in limine .