Manish Pitale, J
1. This is an application seeking amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and it also raises issues pertaining to Order XI of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, in the light of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
2. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of specific amounts from the defendant. The plaintiffs filed documents alongwith the plaint in support of their pleadings and as per the requirement of Order XI of the CPC, applicable to commercial Courts, they also filed a statement of truth in the form of declaration as per explanation to Order XI Rule 1(3) of the CPC. The said statement of truth specifically records that the plaintiffs examined all relevant documents and that all documents in power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiffs, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings, were disclosed with copies thereof annexed to the plaint and that the plaintiffs did not have any other documents in their power, possession, control or custody.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have moved the instant application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking amendment of the pleadings. The plaintiffs are not only seeking amendment of pleadings but also seek to place on record further documents. The amendment is sought as per Schedule I annexed to the application and various documents are sought to be placed on record. It is an admitted position that most of these documents were indeed in the power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiffs at the time of the filing of the suit. Thus, in essence, the present application for amendment has to be considered, not only on the touchstone of the requirement of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, but also Order XI of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits.
4. In the light of the fact that the plaintiffs are required to show reasonable cause for non disclosure of the aforesaid documents that were in their power, possession, control and custody and yet were not filed under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, the application of Rule 1(5) thereof, comes into play. The applicant in the present application appears to be focusing more on Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and the statements made therein do not really focus on the aforementioned requirement of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, for disclosing reasonable cause for non disclosure of such documents alongwith the plaint.
5. The defendant has not opposed the amendment in its entirety, considering that the amendment also pertains to pleadings sought to be introduced with regard to events subsequent to filing of the suit. But, the objection pertaining to Order XI of the CPC has been raised specifically in respect of documents now sought to be introduced by the plaintiffs, which were indeed in their power, possession, control and custody at the time of the filing of the proceedings. The arguments of the rival parties have revolved around the law that is developing in the context of Order XI of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits.
6. Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicants / plaintiffs submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the question of demonstrating reasonable cause for non disclosure of such documents alongwith the plaint under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, may not arise, for the reason that the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after they filed the suit and pressed for grant of interim reliefs, the defendant set up a case, which according to the plaintiffs is a dishonest case, due to which ad-interim reliefs granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court were vacated by the Division Bench of this Court, rendering certain observations against the plaintiffs. In that light, it was submitted that the plaintiffs were now constrained to file the said documents alongwith the present application for amendment, for answering the case set up by the defendant subsequent to filing of the plaint, thereby justifying invocation of Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs referred to the stand taken by the defendant in the application for interim reliefs, wherein it emphasized upon delay on the part of the plaintiffs in filing the suit and such delay being sufficient ground to deny ad-interim reliefs. It was submitted that such stand was a dishonest stand on the face of it, for the reason that the defendant had negotiated with the plaintiffs, seeking time to make payment and assurances were given to the plaintiffs by the top management of the defendant. In the backdrop of the aforesaid case set up by the defendant, the Division Bench of this Court vacated the ad-interim reliefs granted in favour of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in order to answer the said case set up by the defendant, which found favour with the Division Bench of this Court, the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, to place on record the documents annexed with the application for amendment, shown in the schedule consisting of the proposed amendment of the pleadings. On this basis, it is submitted that the rigor of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC would not apply to the facts of the present case and therefore, reliance placed on behalf of the defendant on a judgment of the Supreme Court and judgments of the Delhi High Court and this Court is misplaced. It was emphasized that if the plaintiffs were allowed to invoke Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, nothing in the said Rule would apply to the documents now sought to be produced by the plaintiffs to answer the case set up by the defendant, subsequent to filing of the plaint.
8. It was submitted that the defendant is not justified in claiming that Order XI Rule 1(1)(c) would apply only at the stage of trial, for the reason that Clause (c)(ii) thereof does not use the word ‘defence’ and instead uses the words ‘any case set up by the defendant’. It was submitted that in such circumstances, the Delhi High Court in a series of judgments has permitted filing of documents on behalf of the plaintiffs subsequent to filing of the plaint, although they were not filed with the plaint even when they were in the power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiffs. It was vehemently submitted that in the interest of justice, this Court ought to allow the present application in its entirety, as it would be unjust to prevent the plaintiffs from answering the dishonest case set up on behalf of the plaintiffs. It was further emphasized that merely because Order XI of the CPC is not mentioned in the present application, it would be of no consequence as long as there were sufficient pleadings in the application to justify invoking Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, on behalf of the plaintiffs.
9. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs specifically relied upon judgments of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Vijay Kumar Varshney Vs. Longlast Power Products Ltd. and Anr. Judgment and Order dated 3/7/2023 passed in CM(M)-IPD 1/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Vs. ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2023 SCC Online Del 1457, Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. and Anr. Vs. Bank of India and Ors. 2019 SCC Online Del 10647 , Mahesh Chaudhri and Anr. Vs. IMV India Pvt. Ltd. 2019 SCC Online Del 9813 , Valo Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sprint Cars Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2021 SCC Online Del 4080 .
10. On the other hand, Mr. Seervai, learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that there are absolutely no pleadings in the present application to invoke Order XI of the CPC, as applicable to the commercial suits, much less invoking Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) thereof. It was submitted that the present application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and the plaintiffs have tried to place documents on record, without reference to any pleadings in the application that could justify invocation of Order XI of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits. It was submitted that on this ground alone, the application deserves to be dismissed, to the extent of introduction of documents at this stage, that were admittedly in the power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiffs at the time of the filing of the suit.
11. It was submitted that the defendant was agreeable to the application being partly allowed, to the extent of introduction of the pleadings on record, which pertained to subsequent events, as also to particularize the claims, without prejudice to the rights of the defendant to appropriately respond to the same. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the defendant is objecting to that part of the proposed amendment which seeks to introduce documents in the teeth of Order XI Rule (1) of the CPC, as applicable to the commercial suits, as also the attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to introduce pleadings that pertain to another suit pending before this Court, which have no relevance to the dispute in the present suit.
12. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar G.B. (2021) 13 SCC 71, judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Nitin Gupta Vs. Texmaco Infrastructure & Holding Limited 2019 SCC Online Del 8367 , Rishi Raj Vs. Saregama India Ltd. 2021 SCC Online Del 4897, Anita Chhabra and Ors. Vs. Surender Kumar 2022 SCC Online Del 3089 and Saregama India Limited Vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited 2023 SCC Online Del 2437 as also recent judgment of this Court in the case of Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Swastik Associates and Ors. 2023 SCC Online Bom. 1372 . By placing reliance on the said judgments, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendant emphasised upon the mandatory nature of Order XI Rule 1 of CPC, as applicable to the commercial suits. It was submitted that said documents now sought to be introduced on behalf of the plaintiffs were admittedly in their power, possession, control and custody at the time of the filing of the plaint. Hence, they could be permitted to be taken on record, only upon satisfying Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, as applicable to the commercial suits, by showing reasonable cause that prevented the plaintiffs from placing such documents on record at the time of the filing of the plaint. It was submitted that a perusal of the application would show that there is no averment to demonstrate that the requirement of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, as applicable to the commercial suits, stood satisfied. It was submitted that recourse sought to be taken by the plaintiffs to Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, is wholly misplaced and unjustified. It was submitted that the aforesaid provision could be invoked at the stage of trial when the written statement of the defendant is on record and the plaintiffs seek to answer a stand taken by the defendant during the course of trial. Reference was made to Clauses (i) and (iii) of Order XI Rule 1(1)(c) of CPC to contend that these two clauses clearly indicated that they could be invoked only at the stage of trial and that even Clause (c)(ii) thereof could be invoked at the time of trial and not at the interlocutory stage. It was submitted that even otherwise, the plaintiffs themselves had pleaded in detail in the plaint about the reason why they had approached this Court after about two years. In fact, in the plaint itself, the plaintiffs sought to justify as to why they could seek waiver of the requirement of Section 12(A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, after such period of two years. Thus, the case set up by the defendant while resisting ad-interim reliefs, pertained to delay on the part of the plaintiffs in approaching the Court, in the context of their claim for grant of interim / ad-interim reliefs and there was no question of the said stand taken by the defendant being a ‘dishonest case’ set up by the defendant.
13. It was submitted that the Division Bench of this Court while vacating the ad-interim reliefs, made specific observations against the plaintiffs and that they are seeking to rectify the lacunae in their pleadings by seeking to place on record the aforementioned documents that they failed to place on record alongwith the plaint, although, admittedly such documents were in their power, possession, control and custody. It was submitted that in such circumstances, Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, cannot be invoked by the plaintiffs and they will have to show reasonable cause under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, so as to justify the aforementioned amendment seeking to place the said documents on record. It was further submitted that such reasonable cause will have to be shown in the light of the statement of truth already filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. It was specifically submitted that the pleadings in the present application are deficient and therefore, the application can only be partly allowed, as indicated on behalf of the defendant. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant sought to distinguish the judgments upon which the plaintiffs placed reliance. It was submitted that the defendant relies upon the chart tendered before this Court indicating the extent to which the amendment could be granted.
14. This Court heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed on record, including the judgments referred to by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the rival parties.
15. In order to examine the rival submissions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant portion of Order XI of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits. The same reads as follows:
ORDER XI
Disclosure, Discovery and Inspection of documents in Suits before the Commercial Division of a High Court or a Commercial Court
1. Disclosure and discovery of documents - (1) Plaintiff shall file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint, including -
(a) documents referred to and relied on by the plaintiff in the plaint;
(b) documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings, in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, as on the date of filing the plaint, irrespective of whether the same is in support of or adverse to the plaintiff's case;
(c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by plaintiffs and relevant only-
(i) for the cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses, or
(ii) in answer to any case set-up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or
(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
(2) The list of documents filed with the plaint shall specify whether the documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff are originals, office copies of photocopies and the list shall also set out in brief, details of parties to each document, mode of execution, issuance or receipt and line of custody of each document.
(3) The plaint shall contain a declaration on oath from the plaintiff that all documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by him have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that the plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody.
Explanation-A declaration on oath under this sub-rule shall be contained in the Statement of Truth as set out in the Appendix.
(4) In case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents, as part of the above declaration on oath and subject to grant of such leave by Court, the plaintiff shall file such additional documents in Court, within thirty days of filing the suit, along with a declaration on oath that the plaintiff has produced all documents in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff does not have any other documents, in its power, possession, control or custody.
(5) The plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set out above, save and except by leave of Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non- disclosure along with the plaint
16. Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, quoted hereinabove, mandates that the plaintiff shall file list of all documents and photocopies of all documents in its power, possession, control or custody alongwith the plaint, irrespective of whether the same are in support of or adverse to the case of the plaintiffs. The statement of truth, being a declaration on oath, under Order XI Rule 1(3) of the CPC, also assumes significance. The statement of truth being a declaration on oath is specified in the appendix to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs in the present case indeed filed such statement of truth alongwith the plaint, thereby declaring that they had disclosed all documents that were in their power, possession, control and custody, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated. Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC, makes an exception in urgent cases where the plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in Court within 30 days of filing of the suit, while, Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC refers to power of the Court to grant leave to file such documents that were in the power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiffs at the time of the filing of the suit, which could not be filed at the time of filing the suit, only upon establishing reasonable cause for non disclosure of such documents alongwith the plaint. Apart from this, Order XI Rule 1(1)(c) of CPC carves out an exception in three situations where the Rule itself would not apply. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiffs are invoking one such situation, under Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, which stipulates that nothing in the said Rule will apply to the documents produced by the plaintiffs and relevant only to answer any case set up by the defendant subsequent to filing of the plaint.
17. The defendant has taken a stand in this case that the aforesaid exception carved out under Order XI Rule 1(1)(c) of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, can be invoked only at the stage of trial and not at any interlocutory stage. But, this Court is not in agreement with the defendant on that count, for the reason that there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiffs that Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, applicable to commercial suits, does not use the expression ‘defence’ and uses the words ‘any case set up by the defendant’ subsequent to filing of the plaint. The defendant can certainly set up its case at the interlocutory stage while resisting the interim / ad-interim reliefs. In a rare case, the Court may proceed to even record evidence for deciding the interlocutory matter, in which case, Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(i) and (iii) of the CPC could also be invoked to claim that the Rule would not apply to documents produced by the plaintiffs after filing of the plaint. To that extent, plaintiffs are justified in claiming that they could invoke Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, to justify production of documents alongwith the present application for amendment.
18. This Court is also not inclined to reject the introduction of said documents on behalf of the plaintiffs, only on the ground that the present application has been filed, under Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC and there is no reference to Order XI thereof, for the reason that nomenclature of application can be of no consequence, as long as the plaintiffs have substantially sought to justify the prayers made for amendment, including introduction of the said documents.
19. A perusal of the application, does show that there are sketchy pleadings on behalf of the plaintiffs to introduce such documents that were in their power, possession, control and custody, but were not filed alongwith the plaint. Yet, this Court is inclined to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiffs on merits.
20. The plaintiffs have taken a very clear stand in respect of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC and they have not made any serious attempt to establish reasonable cause for non disclosure of the said documents with the plaint. Specific reliance is placed on Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, by claiming that nothing in the entire Rule itself would apply to the said documents now sought to be placed on record on behalf of the plaintiffs, as the said documents are required to be placed on record to answer the case set up by the defendant subsequent to filing of the plaint.
21. In this context, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs referred to the stand taken on behalf of the defendant while resisting grant of interim / ad-interim reliefs and the subsequent findings rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 13/10/2022, whereby the appeal of the defendant stood allowed and ad-interim order granted in favour of the plaintiffs stood vacated. This Court is of the opinion that the said contention of the plaintiffs needs to be examined in the light of the pleadings in the plaint, the stand taken by the defendant while resisting ad-interim reliefs and the findings rendered by the Division Bench of this Court while holding against the plaintiffs and vacating the ad-interim reliefs.
22. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs themselves refer to urgency in the matter while claiming that the requirement of Section 12(A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was required to be waived. The plaintiffs were clearly aware that the trigger event in the present case, even as per their own pleadings, occurred on or about 28/2/2020, while they chose to file the suit more than two years later on 15/6/2023. The plaintiffs also refer to exit demand notice dated 8/9/2020 while pleading about cause of action and it cannot be said that the plaintiffs could not have contemplated the obvious stand that the defendant could take in response, while resisting ad-interim reliefs. It cannot be said that the stand taken by the defendant took the plaintiffs by surprise or that such stand could not have been contemplated by the plaintiffs or that it was too remote to be anticipated by the plaintiffs while filing the suit. In such a situation, while the plaintiffs were claiming the waiver of 12(A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, they were expected to place on record relevant documents alongwith the plaint to explain why they took more than two years to approach the Court. The aspect of urgency could be demonstrated by such documents that were admittedly in their power, possession, control and custody at the time of filing of the plaint. Yet, they chose to not to file or disclose such documents and now the plaintiffs are seeking to place such documents on record alongwith the present application for amendment, with sketchy pleadings, in support of the stand taken on their behalf relatable to Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC. Reliance placed on behalf of the plaintiffs on the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Varshney Vs. Longlast Power Products Ltd. and Anr. Supra, Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Vs. ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. supra, Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. and Anr. Vs. Bank of India and Ors. supra, Mahesh Chaudhri and Anr. Vs. IMV India Pvt. Ltd. supra, Valo Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sprint Cars Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. supra, is misplaced for the reason that in the said cases, on facts, the Court found that the plaintiffs therein could be permitted to place documents on record to answer the specific stand taken on behalf of the defendant, which necessitated placing such documents available in the public domain. None of the cases, pertained to a situation where such documents were in the power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiffs while approaching the Court and filing the plaint. In the present case, the plaintiffs do not claim that the documents were in public domain, which were now required to be filed and to be produced before this Court to answer the specific case set up by the defendant while resisting grant of interim / ad-interim reliefs. In one of the judgments of the Delhi High Court, referred to hereinabove, it has been observed that the plaintiffs cannot be expected to burden the record of the commercial court by filing all documents that could be relatable to even a remote stand that the defendant may take in a given case. But, such a situation has not arisen in the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the reason that the response of the defendant to grant interim / ad-interim reliefs is based on the admitted position stated by the plaintiffs in the plaint that while the cause of action was triggered as far back as in February 2020, they chose to file the suit in June 2022.
23. This Court is also not impressed with the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendant has taken a dishonest stand, necessitating the filing of the said documents, and that the plaintiffs were not required to file the same at the time of filing of the plaint, although they were in their power, possession, control and custody. The documents now sought to be placed on record were exchanged between the parties during the period of time before filing of the suit by the plaintiffs and it was for the plaintiffs to place such documents on record, which could support their case of urgency having been triggered just prior to filing of the suit, despite the fact that the cause of action had arisen much earlier. There is no question of any dishonesty on the part of the defendant, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
24. There is also substance in the contention raised on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiffs are now seeking to cure the lacunae in their case, in the light of the findings given by the Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the appeal of the defendant and vacating the ad-interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to invoke Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, to rectify the lacunae in their pleadings while pressing for interim reliefs.
25. In any case, the plaintiffs have not been able to demonstrate in the present application any material to show reasonable cause that prevented the plaintiffs from disclosing the said documents alongwith the plaint. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar G.B. (supra) and the position of law clarified by judgments of the Delhi High Court on which reliance was placed on behalf of the defendant, including a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Swastik Associates and Ors. (supra) sufficiently indicates that the present application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC cannot masquerade as an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, to justify the introduction of the said documents at this stage. The rigor of Order XI of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, in line with the objects of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, makes it sufficiently clear that the present application falls short of any justification on the part of the plaintiffs to press for the said documents to be taken on record.
26. In the light of the findings rendered hereinabove, this Court refrains from deliberating upon the contentions raised on behalf of the rival parties on the aspect as to whether the said documents sought to be placed on record could be said to be documents exchanged during ‘without prejudice negotiations’. The said issue would have arisen only if the plaintiffs would have succeeded in placing their case under Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) and Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits. Since, the plaintiffs have failed to do so, the aforesaid issue does not deserve consideration at all.
27. It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that certain amendments pertaining to subsequent events can be allowed. There is also substance in the contention raised on behalf of the defendant that amendment of pleadings that pertain to another suit have no place in the pleadings in the present case. Therefore, the portion of the amendment seeking to introduce the aforementioned documents, as also the pleadings relatable to such documents and the pleadings pertaining to the other suit, cannot be permitted and the application deserves to be only partly allowed.
28. In view of the above, the application is partly allowed and the plaintiffs are permitted to amend the pleadings, only to add by way of amendment paragraph 2A from Schedule I to the application and placing on record Exh.A-1 referred to therein, paragraphs 35E, 35F, 40A, replacing of paragraph 41 of the plaint with paragraph shown at ‘K’ in Schedule I, paragraphs 43-B, 43-C, 43-D, 43-F, 43-G, 43-I and 43-J, addition of pleadings as per ‘N’ in Schedule I in paragraph 53 of the original plaint, addition of Exh.S-1 pertaining to revised particulars of claim below Exh.‘S’ already filed with the plaint. Similarly, addition by way of amendment is permitted in the application for interim reliefs by adding paragraphs 1-A, 8-C and 12-D as shown in Schedule I. Thus, the application for amendment stands partly allowed, only to the aforesaid extent. The amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. Re-verification is dispensed with.
29. The application stands disposed of in above terms.
