Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 444 (ALL)

ANANTHA RAM v. ADDI. CIVIL JUDGE

2001-05-08

SUDHIR NARAIN

body2001
SUDHIR NARAIN,J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 21. 11. 1985 whereby respondent No. 1 rejected the application of the petitioner for putting his signatures on the plaint and uakalatnama. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed Suit No. 32 of 1977 for ejectment of defendant No. 1 and for demolition of construction raised by him. The suit was contested by three defendants by filing three separate written statements. The parties led evidence in the case and the suit was dismissed on merits. The trial court further held that the plaint was not signed by the plaintiff but it was signed by his son Lakshmi Narain and as such the plaint was not properly presented. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed an application that he may be permitted to put his signatures on the plaint and Vakalatnama. This application has been rejected by the court by the impugned order dated 21. 11. 1985. ( 3 ) THE pleading is to be signed in accordance with Order 6 Rule 14, C. P. C. which provides that 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 authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. Order 6 rule 15 C. P. C. provides for the verification of the plaint. ( 4 ) THE plaint was presented on behalf of the petitioner but it was signed by his son lakshmi Narain and he had also signed vakalatnama. He did not give any specific reason as to why the plaintiff-petitioner did not sign the plaint. The application was, however, filed by the petitioner that he may be permitted to put his signatures on the plaint. ( 5 ) IN Bombay Baroda and Central India Ry. Co. Ltd. v. Siyaji Mills Co. Ltd. , baroda, it was held that any irregularity in the signature or verification of the plaint is a mere defect of procedure and cannot be fatal in second appeal when the merits of the case have not been affected. The defect can be cured even at the appellate stage. Co. Ltd. v. Siyaji Mills Co. Ltd. , baroda, it was held that any irregularity in the signature or verification of the plaint is a mere defect of procedure and cannot be fatal in second appeal when the merits of the case have not been affected. The defect can be cured even at the appellate stage. In Subbiah Pillai alias S. S. M. Siibramania Pillai v. Sankara-pandiam Pillai and others, the Court was of the opinion that 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. The appellate Court ought not to dismiss the suit or interfere with the decree of the lower court merely because the plaint has not been signed. In Kalu Ram Pannalal and another v. Jagannath Kalua, the Court observed that the omission by the plaintiffs to sign the plaint is merely a formal error and not a serious defect which went to the root of the matter, so as to vitiate the whole institution of the suit. In such a case, the Court has power to allow the plaintiff to remedy the defected a later stage, even though the period of limitation for filing the plaint may have already expired. In Karam singh v. Ram Rachhpal Singh and others, the Court permitted the plaintiff to sign and verify the plaint where originally it was not signed by him but by his pleader alone and further observed that before the Court dismissed his plaint on this ground, the Court should provide an opportunity to the plaintiff or his Muhhtar to verify and sign the plaint. ( 6 ) IN the present case, as noted above, the plaint was signed by the son of the plaintiff-petitioner. The plaint was also signed by the counsel. The defect was curable and when the petitioner had asked permission of the court to put his signatures on the plaint and verify it, there was no justification for the Court to reject his prayer. ( 7 ) IT may be noted that the evidence had been led by the parties fri the case and the matter is pending in appeal. If the plaint is rejected on the ground that it is not duly verified, it will cause hardship. ( 7 ) IT may be noted that the evidence had been led by the parties fri the case and the matter is pending in appeal. If the plaint is rejected on the ground that it is not duly verified, it will cause hardship. As noted above, the court can permit a plaintiff even during the pendency of appeal to put signatures on the plaint and verify it taking into consideration all the relevant factors. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 23. 11. 1985 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be permitted to put his signatures on the plaint and vakalatnama as also shall verify the pleadings. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .