Replacing Pages In Notarised Pleadings Is Tampering: Bombay High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Party, Lawyer & Notary For "Shocking" Conduct
The Bombay High Court has held that once a document is notarised, neither the Notary nor any party is permitted to replace any page, and that replacing any page amounts to tampering with the original pleadings served upon the defendants. The Court observed that no party can be permitted to tamper with pleadings and documents in such a manner and described the conduct of the plaintiff, advocate...
The Bombay High Court has held that once a document is notarised, neither the Notary nor any party is permitted to replace any page, and that replacing any page amounts to tampering with the original pleadings served upon the defendants. The Court observed that no party can be permitted to tamper with pleadings and documents in such a manner and described the conduct of the plaintiff, advocate on record and Notary as “shocking and unacceptable”.
Accordingly, the Court imposed costs of Rs.50,000 each on the plaintiff, the advocate on record and the Notary.
Justice Gauri Godse was hearing an Interim Application, where the matter had been adjourned on account of a discrepancy in the prayer clause, which was different in the copy of the plaint served upon the defendants from that in the court record.
The plaintiff's advocate stated that corrections had been made to remove office objections and that the plaintiff's staff had misunderstood the information conveyed to them, resulting in the prayer clause being changed by retyping the page. The Notary stated that he had affixed his stamp on a subsequent date in good faith, being unaware that the page had been replaced.
The Court noted that there is no endorsement in the original plaint regarding corrections made by the advocate, and the corrections have been done only by the advocate for the plaintiff, while a different copy has been served upon the defendants along with the writ of summons.
The Court observed that once the oath is administered and the Notary affixes the stamp, 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.
“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 Court observed.
On the Conduct of the petitioner, the Court remarked:
“… though the page in the original plaint is not replaced, the plaintiff's office has replaced the page in the photocopy and served it on the defendant as if it is the true copy of the plaint… 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.”
The Court noted that there is no specific procedure provided for the manner in which the original pleadings can be corrected for removal of office objections, and suggested that a necessary amendment is made to the Rules or a practice note is issued prescribing the procedure for removal of office objections, which requires changes to be made in the original pleadings.
While the Court accepted the apologies tendered by the plaintiff, advocate on record and Notary, it expressed its displeasure, observing:
“… the conduct of the plaintiff, the advocate on record, and the Notary is shocking and unacceptable and needs to be deprecated. 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.”
Case Title: Villayati Ram Mittal v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority through the Chief Executive Officer [Commercial Suit No. 173 of 2019]