Pleading verification by attorney requires proof of factual acquaintance; a power of attorney alone is not enough.

Verification of pleadings under Order VI Rule 15 CPC serves to fix responsibility and deter false or reckless pleadings. Where a plaint is verified by an attorney rather than the plaintiff, the verifier must be shown to the court's satisfaction to be acquainted with the facts of the case; a bare power of attorney authorising signature is insufficient. Because the plaint contained serious allegations and only the power of attorney was produced, the court found the verification defective and required the plaintiff to verify the plaint personally. The objection to verification succeeded, while the objection relating to signing of the vakalatnama and plaint did not.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaint could be validly verified by an attorney under a power of attorney without independent proof that he was acquainted with the facts of the case, and whether the plaintiff should be required to verify the plaint personally.

Analysis: Verification of pleadings under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is intended to fix responsibility on the person verifying and to prevent reckless or false pleadings. Where verification is made by someone other than the party himself, the person must be proved to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. A mere power of attorney authorising the agent to sign the verification is not enough. In the circumstances of this case, the allegations in the plaint were serious, and the only material placed before the court below was the power of attorney. That was insufficient to establish the verifier's competence.

Conclusion: The objection to verification succeeded. The plaintiff was required to verify the plaint personally, while the objection regarding the signing of the vakalatnama and plaint remained dismissed.

---