G.C. Jain, J.
(1) On Oct. 14, 1982, some of the defs. in this case were directed to be served by beat of drums and others by ordinary process and/ or through registered post. A memo of appearance was filed on behalf of defts. I to 6 and 10 and a letter was addressed to the counsel for the plaintiff requesting him for sending signed copies to the pleadings etc. The said defs. were, however, informed that the copies may be collected from the Registry where the same had been filed. The enquiries revealed that only nine copies had been filed though the process fee was to be issued to twelve defs and the same did not contain list of reliance or list of documents and the copies of pleadings were unsigned. The pleadings and the interlocutory applications contained defamatory statements and also incorrect names and addresses. One would not say if they were correct copies as per originals. On these allegations the applicants defs. 1 to 6 & 10) seek directions to the plaintiffs to supply correct signed copies of tile plaint, interlocutory applications and the affidavits filed in support of these applications.
(2) This application was opposed. It was averred that as many copies of the plaint, interlocutory applications and the affidavits were filed as the number of defendants who were ordered to be served. The plaint contained allegations which were strictly relevant. In order to avoid delay the requisite number of copies of the plaint, 1.As. and the affidavits had been sent to the applicant's counsel. It was, however admitted at the bar that the copies sent were returned being unsigned and/or initialled.
(3) The short question which falls for determination in this application, thereforee is whether the copy of the plaint and/or application and the affidavit to be supplied to the defs. require to be signed and/or initialled by the plaintiffs or their counsel.
(4) Order Vii, Rule 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Code . provides that the plaintiff on the admission of the plaint shall present, within such time as may be fixed by the court or extended by it, from time to time, as many copies on plain paper of the plaint as there are defendants. Order V, Rule 2 provides that every summons shall be accompanied by a copy of the plaint or, if so permitted, by a concise statement. Chapter Iv of Delhi High Court (Original side) Rules 1967 deals with presentation of plaint and other documents. Rule I of the said chapter, interalia, say that sufficient number of copies of the plaint, petition or application shall also be filed for service on the opposite party. Thus (he provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code as well as in the Delhi High Court (0.S.) Rules speak about the copy of the plaint and application for service on the opposite party. There is no mention in any of these provisions that the said copy or copies shall be authenticated or signed or initialled by the plaintiff or his counsel. 'Copy' according to the concise Oxford Dictionary, means: reproduction (of writing, picture, etc); imitation; page written after model... etc. (copy' doe(r) not mean signed or initialled copy. In the absence of any provision for authentication of the copy of plaint, application and affidavit in the Gpg or in the D.H.G. (0.S.) Rules, such provisions cannot be added.
(5) It is important to note that the D.H.G. (0.S.) Rules specifically make a distinction between the copies of the plaint, application and affidavit and the copies of written statement, counter-affidavit in rejoinder Rule 5 of Ch. Vi of the said Rules provides that no. w/s or list of documents shall be filed without the leave of the court unless a copy thereof has been previously served on each party or his advocate and that copy shall be authenticated by the signature or initials of the parties or their advocates on each page at the bottom of the left hand margin. Similarly, R. 3 of Chapter Ix, lays down that no counter affidavit and no affidavit in rejoinder shall be filed unless a copy thereof and copies ofannexiires thereto, if any, have been previously served on each party or his advocate and that such copies shall be authenticated in the same manner. The absence of specific provisions for lUpplying the authenticated copy of the plaint, application or affidavit were not required to be authenticated, fhe reason appears to be that under the Rules, the copies of 'written statement', counter affidavit, affidavit in rejoinder are required to be served on the other party or his counsel before the same could be filed in court. In the case of plaint the plaintiff is requi- red to file the copy of the plaint only after the plaint is admitted.
(6) Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the plaint was the foundation of the suit, the proper service of the def. depended on his getting a copy of the plaint and in these circumstances it was essential that the copy of the plaint was also authenticated in the same manner. Rules relating to copies of written statement, counter affidavit and affidavit in rcj3inder, urged Learned counsel, will equally apply to copy of the plaint, application and affidavit. This contention cannot be accepted. Rules make a clear distinc- corporation between the copies of plaint, application and affidavit and the copies of written statement, counter affidavit and affidavit in rejoinder. No purpose is to be achieved by adding the word 'authenticated before the word 'copy' in Rule I ofGh. VI. If it is found that the copy of the plaint supplied was not the correct copy the plaint can be burdened with costs for the adjourn- ment caused. If the incorrect copy was supplied intentionally other suitable orders can also be made if required.
(7) The decision of S.G. in Bushing Schmitz P. Ltd. v. P. T. Merghani, (1977 Rlr 282) is of no help. S. 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 imposed a prohibition on the landlord to relet the whole or any part of the premises within three years from the date of obtaining possession in persu- ance of an order of eviction under Clause (e) of the proviso to S. 14(1) i.e. on the ground ofbonafide requirement. The question which came up for consi- deration before the S.G, was whether the prohibition would apply to eviction orders obtained under S. 14A which was added later on creating the right to recover immediate possession of the premises by the landlord who being in occupation of any residential premises allotted to them by the Central Govt. or any local authority was required, by, or in pursuance of any general special order made by that Govt. or local authority, to vacate such residen- tial accommodation. Keeping in view the purpose of the Act and the socio economic project it was held that S. 19 would be applicable to such a case also. In the present case no such purpose is to be achieved by direc- ting the plaintiffs to supply authenticated copies, especially when there is no allegation even that the copies tendered or filed in the Registry were in any way inaccurate. I, consequently find no merit in the application and dismiss the same.