Pathak, C.J. (Actg.).:- This proceeding was initially started as a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.75 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Darrang, Tezpur in Title appeal No. 12 of 1974 arising out of a proceeding under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. In view of the decision dated 12.11.79 of this Court in L. P. A. 11 of 1976, no second appeal is maintainable under the Act. Being faced with this predicament the appellant filed a petition for conv­erting the second appeal into a revision. In an identical matter in S.C.A. No. 1 of 1981, (Civil Appeal No. 3092 of 1981 deci­ded on 18.11.81) arising out of Second Appeal No. 87 of 1973 the Supreme Court directed for converting the second appeal into a revision subject to the question of maintainability, In the above view of the matter this second appeal is con­verted into a revision subject to the question of maintainability. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction as well as for arrears of rent for 70 months and also for mesne profits from 1.7.72 to 31.8.72 on the ground that the Respondent was a defaulter. The Respondent contested the suit by filing a written state­ment contending that the suit is not filed by the proper person and that the defendent is not a defaulter and also that no valid and proper notice was served upon the defendant. The further averment in the written statement is that the suit is barred by limitation and the suit is not maintainable as it is not in proper form. 3. On the pleadings of the parties the following six issues were framed : (1) Whether the plaint is signed and verified by proper person? (2) Whether the Defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff? (3) Whether there was valid and proper notice for termi­nating the tenancy? (4) Whether the Defendenl is a defaulter as alleged by the plaintiff? (5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (6) To what relief or reliefs are the parties entitled? During trial one witness on behalf of the petitioner and one witness for the Respondent were examined. Further from the side of the plaintiff, five exhibits were also adduced during trial. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. (6) To what relief or reliefs are the parties entitled? During trial one witness on behalf of the petitioner and one witness for the Respondent were examined. Further from the side of the plaintiff, five exhibits were also adduced during trial. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The Respondent being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court on consideration of issue No. 1 recorded a finding that the plaint was not signed and verified by the proper person and accordingly the suit Avas dismissed without considering the marits of the case. Hence the petitioner has started this proceeding against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 4. In this revision petition, the Central point for deter­mination is whether the decision given on Issue No. 1 by the learned trial court is sustainable in law. 5. Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the learned trial Court on consideration of evidence on record has come to a finding on issue No. 1 that the plaint was filed by the proper person and in view of that finding the appellate Court was not justified in overturning the decision of the trial Court on a very narrow and technical ground. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that even if the plaint was not properly signed, that by itself petitioner would not be non-suited. This would be merely a procedural irre­gularity within section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brief 'the Code') which reads as under : "S. 99. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that even if the plaint was not properly signed, that by itself petitioner would not be non-suited. This would be merely a procedural irre­gularity within section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brief 'the Code') which reads as under : "S. 99. No decree to be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction.- No decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of any mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any pro­ceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to non--joinder of a necessary party." The learned counsel also has referred to various provisi­ons of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as to Section 68(2) of the Partnership Act for the purpose that when the certified copy of the registration certificate was produced before the Court and accepted by the trial Court, the appe­llate Court should not have discarded that piece of evidence merely on some untenable ground. The learned counsel also has submitted that the appellate court acted illegally and in material irregularity in failure to exercise the jurisdiction and thereby impinging the jurisdictional question envisaged under section 115 of the Code. Order IV, Rule 1 provides for the institution of a suit. It reads : Suit to be commended by plaint.-(1) Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. (2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, so far as they are applicable" Order VI, Rule 14 makes provision for signing the pleading by the parties. (2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, so far as they are applicable" Order VI, Rule 14 makes provision for signing the pleading by the parties. It reads : "Pleading to be signed.-Every pleading shall be sig­ned by the party and his pleader (if any) : Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly autho­rized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf." Order VI, Rule 15 is a provision for verification of pleadings From a fair reading of Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI, it is found that the object of signature and verification of the plaint is to fix upon the plaintiff the responsibility for the statement and to affirm the guarantee of good-faith in filing the suit. Hence in this case the suit is not disowned by the plaintiff firm. On the other hand, it has all along prosecuted the suit diligently which shows the bonafide on the part of the plaintiff. Order VII, Rule 11 provides for rejection of a plaint which reads as under : "Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." 6. The learned Counsel has also brought to my notice that as the suit has been filed by a partnership firm, Order XXX Rule 1 of the Code is applicable under which a suit by a partnership firm, where the pleading or other document required by or under the Code, can be signed and verified by any of the partners of the firm. The learned Counsel has submitted that during the trial the certified copy of the partnership deed was introduced by P.W. 1 which shows that Ram Swarup Tibrewal is one of the partners of the firm. Therefore, the appellate Court, in view of the finding of the trial court that Ram Swarup Tibrewal was a partner, was not justified that the plaint was not signed and verified by the proper person. The learned Counsel has further submitted that even a non-signing of a plaint would be a mere irregularity and in support of that the learned counsel has referred to a catena of decisions, same of which we may notice hereunder : In Wali Mohammad Khan vs. Ishak Ali Khan and others, AIR 1931, Allahabad 507 a decision by a Special Bench, where referring to Order IV, Rule 1, it was held that the omission to comply with the provisions regarding presentation of plaint is a mere irregularity and not an absence of jurisdiction and if a person presenting it is not properly authorised the presen­tation would be irregular and the Court would then have the discretion to allow the irregularity to be cured or not. If the plaintiff has acted in good faith and without gross negligence and it is fair and just to allow the defect to be cured the Court would undoubtedly do so. If the plaintiff has acted in good faith and without gross negligence and it is fair and just to allow the defect to be cured the Court would undoubtedly do so. It has further been held in that case that the absence of signature or verification or for the matter of that the absence of presentation on the part of some of the plaintiffs out of several does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court, and the suit must be deemed to have been duly instituted on their behalf if it was filed with their knowledge and authority. It is submittted by the learned Counsel that in this case the plaint was not only not signed but it was signed by one of the partners, namely, Ram Swarup Tibrewal, regarding which the trial Court has given a clear finding that he is the partner of the plaintiff-firm. In Provabati Kunwar vs. Kaiser Kunwar and others, AIR 1959 Calcutta 642, where the Court had to consider the provi­sion of Order VI, Rule 17 in which a preliminary issue that the suit as framed is not maintainable, it was held that the application for amendment of plaint making out alternative case can be entertained. There the plaintiff widow instituted a suit for partition and possession of one-sixth share of property against the co-sharers of her deceased husband, as owner. She alleged that the alleged adoption of the defendant by her was fraudulent. Seeing that she could not allege and prove fraud in view of previous litigation on the ground of res judicata, she prayed for amending the plaint, making out an alternative case that it was agreed at the time of adoption that she would be in control of property during her life time, even though the defendant would be the owner of the one-sixth share. On these facts it was held that though the alternative case was a different one based upon different cause of action, she was entitled to make it out and as such she was competent to institute the suit for partition on her possessory title and that the amendment should be allowed, since there were sufficient facts in the plaint to raise this controversy. It was further held that the suit as amended being based on possessory title and being one for partition and the plai­ntiff not having been dispossessed, no question of limitation would arise and the amendment would not be refused on this ground. In Sarju Prasad Gillelal Agarwal vs. Badri Prasad Ramaiya Prasad Tiwari, AIR 1939, Nagpur 242, a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court considering the scope of Order VI, Rule 14, has held that this provision which requires a pleading to be signed by the parties is merely a matter of procedure. That provides for signature being made by any person who is authorised by the party. Hence a mortgage suit brought by one of the two mortgagees but duly authorised by the other is competent. Plaint in such case, if presented by the pleader of the litigating mortgagee, is deemed to have been properly presented. In Mohini Mohan Das and others vs. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das and others, 17 Calcutta 580 (P.C.), the Privy Council had to consider the question of signature of a plaint by one of several cc-plaintiffs. There three suits for money were filed by one of three joint-creditors, the others being named as co-plaintiffs with him in the plaints, which he alone signed and verified. An order has made by the Court after the filing of the plaint that one of these joint creditors should be added as a co-plaintiff, as if he had not been on the record already. If the date of that order had been the date of suit brought, limitation under Act XV of 1877, Sch. II, Art. 67, would have applied; but it was held that all the joint-creditors became plaintiffs when the plaints were filed, the order adding parties being inoperative, and that the suits when instituted were not defective for want of parties. Regarding the scope and application of Section 99 of the Code, the learned Counsel refers to Mohammad Husain Khan and Others vs. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai, AIR 1937 Privy Council 233. There on behalf of the defendants it was contended that while Giri Bala could continue the suit on the cause of action which accrued to her husband, she was not entitled to add to it an alternative cause of action which accrued to her in her personal capacity. There on behalf of the defendants it was contended that while Giri Bala could continue the suit on the cause of action which accrued to her husband, she was not entitled to add to it an alternative cause of action which accrued to her in her personal capacity. It was noticed, however, that suit was tried on the amended plaint, and that the parties have adduced all the evidence relating to both the causes of action. On these facts their Lordships did not think it pro­per that, even if, there is any substance in the objection raised to the amendment of the plaint, it should now be allowed to prevail, and all the time and labour expended on the trial of the suit should be thrown away. It was observed that to prevent the mischief which may be caused by the reversal of the decree in a case of this kind, section 99 of the Code provides that no decree shall be reversed or sub­stantially varied nor shall any case be remanded in appeal, on account of any misjoinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. The High Court had decided that the trial of the suit on the alternative causes of action is sanctioned by the law, and it was not suggested that the alleged misjoinder of the causes of action has affected the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. It was pointed out that the issue was now narrowed down to the simple point whether, even if there was a misjoinder their Lordships should on that gro­und, reverse the decree granted by the High Court. It was pointed out that the issue was now narrowed down to the simple point whether, even if there was a misjoinder their Lordships should on that gro­und, reverse the decree granted by the High Court. Ultimately their Lordships held that "assuming that the High Court has erred in overruling the objection to the amendment and in upholding the trial on both the causes of action, they do not think that the trial should be rendered abortive, when the alleged misjoinder has affected neither the merits of the case nor the jurisdiction of the Court." Drawing subsistence from the above ruling of the Privy Council, the learned Counsel has submitted that the signature and verification of the plaint by Ram Swarup Tibrewal did neither go to the merit of the case nor the jurisdiction of the Court and therefore the appellate court should not have found the issue against the plaintiff and thereby dismissed the suit. In Basdeo vs. John Smidt and others, 22 Allahabad 55, the Allahabad High Court in the appellate jurisdiction had to con­sider the effect of a plaint not signed by the plaintiff or the authorised agent, where it has been held that mere fact that the plaint in a suit has not been signed by the plaintiff named therein or by any person duly authorised by him on that behalf as required by section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (old) (Order 6, Rule 14 of the present Code), will not necessarily make the plaint absolutely void. A defect in the signature of the plaint or the absence of the signature, where it appears that the suit was in fact filed with the knowledge and by the authority of the plaintiff named therein, may be waived by the defendant, or, if necessary, cured by amendment at any stage of the suit, and having regard to section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure (old) (section 99, present Code) is not a ground for interference in appeal. In Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur vs. Smt. Ghulab Kaur, AIR 1977 Punjab and Haryana 257, in considering the scope of Order VI, Rule 14, it was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the signing and verification of the plaint can be made by a person authorised by the plaintiff and the defect in signing and verification is only an irregularity which can be remedied under section 99 of the Code. In Subbiah Pillai alias S.S.M Subromania Pillai vs. Sanka-rapandiam Piliai & others, AIR 1948 Madras 369 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court while considering the scope of Order VI, Rule 14 has held that-where a plaintiff has not signed a plaint, filed with his knowledge and consent, it is an omission which can be cured, and indeed, should be corr­ected in the interests of justice. The omission to sign or verify a plaint is not such a defect as could affect the merits of a case or the jurisdiction of the Court and is curable under the provisions of Section 99. If the defect is not discovered until the case comes on for hearing before an appellate Court, the appellate Court may order the amend­ment to be made in that Court. The appellate Court ought not to dismiss the suit or interfere with the decree of the lower Court merley because the plaint has not been signed. (emphasis supplied) 7. The learned Counsel has also drawn my attention to-the evidence adduced in the case. During trial P. W. 1 who is one of the partners was examined as a witness. He in­troduced the registration certificate of the plaintiff-firm wherein the name of Ram Swarup Tibrewal figures as a partner. On the basis of this evidence the learned trial court held that Ram Swarup Tibrewal, who is a partner of the firm, his signing and verifying of the plaint was proper. There is no suggestion nor any question put in the cross-examination to this witness that Ram Swarup Tibrewal is not a partner or that the suit was not filed on behalf of the firm. I have very carefully scanned the evidence of P.W. 1 and I do not find that any question challenging the signing and verifica­tion of the plaint has been made. I have also gone through the evidence of D.W. 1, the present Respondent who examined himself as a witness. I have very carefully scanned the evidence of P.W. 1 and I do not find that any question challenging the signing and verifica­tion of the plaint has been made. I have also gone through the evidence of D.W. 1, the present Respondent who examined himself as a witness. Even in his evidence I do not find any statement made that the plaint is not signed by the proper person. In view of the clinching evidence on record, the learned trial court was justified in coming to a finding in deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The registra­tion certificate which was adduced at the time of evidence without any objection formed part of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and should have been kept and marked as Exhibit in the proceeding. As this was not done, the petiti­oner had filed anpplication under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure for admitting the said registration cartificate in, the interest of justice of the case. 8. Mr. N.M. Lahiri, the learned Advocate General, Meghalaya appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that as the plaintiff has failed to prove the registration certificate, the appellate court could not have accepted that it was Ram Swarup Tibrewal who signed and verified the plaint was a partner of the petitioner-firm. The further submission of the learned coun­sel is that the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure for adducing the registration certificate before this Court should not be accepted as this is a revisional petition in which the additional evidence cannot be allowed to be introduced. 9. I have already stated that although there is an issue framed being Issue No. 1 that the plaint has not been signed and verified by the proper person, there is no material from the side of the defendant respondent challenging that the person who signed and verified the plaint is not the proper person. In the written statement in paragraph 1 there is the only bald averment that the plaint has not been signed and filed by a proper person and as such the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. This is the only statement found in the plea­ding which is not substantiated by any evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant-respondent. This is the only statement found in the plea­ding which is not substantiated by any evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant-respondent. Further, even the failure to sign a plaint does not merit rejection of the plaint as envisa­ged under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code. However, here in this case, the plaint has been signed by Ram Swarup Tibrewal as the partner of the firm. In my opinion, the appellate court should have considered that the registration certificate which shows the name of Ram Swarup Tibrewal as one of the partners, should have been properly examined and in the interest of justice the Court should have called for the same subject to any objection that could have been taken by the defendant. In the earlier part of my judgment, while considering the evi­dence of parties, I have noted that on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W. 1 has clearly stated that the suit is filed on behalf of the firm. The registration certificate of the firm was shown to the trial Court which was noted by the Court and was satisfied that the firm has filed the suit where the plaint has been signed by one of the partners. D.W. 1 examined on behalf of the defendant-respondent has not said a word that the plaint was not signed and verified by the proper person. In view of the said state of evidence, the finding of the trial court which was recorded on the basis of the registration certificate and the evidence, on record, should not have been thrown overboard by the appellate court and thereby dismissed the suit. The Madras decision (AIR 1948 Madras 359) (supra) cited above, has clearly held that mere omission to sign or verify a plaint is not such a defect as could affect the merits of a case or the jurisdiction of the Court and if at all, it is curable under the provisions of section 99. I am in respectful agree­ment with the opinion expressed by their Lordships of the Madras High Court. 10. In view of the reasons set forth above, I am of ind­ubitable opinion that the registration certificate may be allowed under Section 151 of the Code, to be introduced in the pro­ceeding in the interest of justice. I am in respectful agree­ment with the opinion expressed by their Lordships of the Madras High Court. 10. In view of the reasons set forth above, I am of ind­ubitable opinion that the registration certificate may be allowed under Section 151 of the Code, to be introduced in the pro­ceeding in the interest of justice. Accordingly the registration certificate which is sought to be introduced is allowed to be a part of the record subject to any objection that may be taken up by the defendant-respondent in the appellate court, to which I am going to remand the proceeding. The learned appellate court has not gone into the merit of the case. There­fore it is fit and proper that the learned appellate court goes to the merit of the case and dispose of the matter in accor­dance with law. As the application of the petitioner under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure is allowed by in­voking the provision of S.151, for introducing the registration certificate, this will also come up for consideration by the appellate court subject to any objection that may be raised by the defendant-respondent. 11. In the result this petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. But in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. The case is remanded to the appellate Court for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. Send down the records of the case immediately to the appellate court.