JUDGMENT : Lyle, J. In this case, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal under the following circumstances. The appeal to that court was filed by a pleader who had a Vakalatnama but by some oversight he omitted to get that Vakalatnama signed by the appellants. One of the appellants was, however, present at the time the appeal was presented but the memorandum of appeal was signed not by him but by the pleader. After the period of limitation had expired, the absence of the appellant's signature on the Vakalatnama was discovered and the defect was made good. The lower appellate court held that the appeal was barred by limitation and, declining to exercise its discretionary powers under section 5 of the Limitation Act, it dismissed the appeal. The defendants come here in second appeal. They rely on the rulings of Thyagarajan Aiyar v. Sankaran Aiyar, [1896] M.L.J., Vol. VI, Parts X and XI, p. 213 and Maharaj'i of Rewa v. Swami Saran, [1903] I.L.R., 25 All., 635. I do not think that either of the rulings can be distinguished from the present case and I expressly refer to a passage on page 637 of the last-mentioned ruling. “The mere fact that a plaint contained a defect in the matter of signature or verification does not make it a void and inadmissible plaint.” In this case, the memorandum of appeal was duly signed by the pleader, the only defect being that he had at the time omitted, owing to an oversight, to get his client's signature upon the Vakalatnama. This did not make the memorandum of appeal a void and inadmissible one and, in my opinion, the appeal to the lower appellate court was not barred by limitation. Assuming, however, that it was, I do not think the lower appellate court exercised a proper discretion in refusing to apply section 5 of the Limitation Act. There appears to be no doubt as to the bona fides either of the appellants or of their pleader. The omission to get the Vakalatnama signed was a purely accidental one. The lower court was of opinion that it would be a bad precedent to consider a blank Vakalatnama operative. The lower appellate court was never asked to do this. There appears to be no doubt as to the bona fides either of the appellants or of their pleader. The omission to get the Vakalatnama signed was a purely accidental one. The lower court was of opinion that it would be a bad precedent to consider a blank Vakalatnama operative. The lower appellate court was never asked to do this. What it was asked to do was to admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation because by a mere oversight the memorandum of appeal was accompanied by a Vakalatnama which was in fact inoperative. The lower appellate court also thought that much harm would be done if it overlooked in one case the negligence of a pleader. This omission appears to me to be one which might easily occur in the course of the most carefully conducted business. It seems to me to be very hard on the client to throw out his case merely because his pleader or his pleader's clerk forgot to get his signature on the Vakalatnama before filing the appeal. I, therefore, decree the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and remand the case for decision on the merits, costs being in the discretion of the court below.