JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P.B. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite parties although notice has been served. 2. The plaintiff of Money Suit No.61/2007 of the court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.09.2010 whereby the learned trial court accepted the written statement of the defendants. The petitioner herein as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid Money Suit No.61/2007 against as many as six defendants praying for a decree for realization of Rs.15,81,422.95 along with interest both future and pendent lite. On being summoned the defendants appeared and after praying for adjournment on two dates ultimately filed a written statement within 90 days but the same was signed by the learned engaged counsel and not by the defendant No.2 who was entrusted by the defendant No.1 to sign the written statement as the defendant No.2 was out of station. The defendants filed an application on that day through the learned counsel praying for leave to permit defendant No.2 to verify and sign the written statement on the next date. The suit was thereafter fixed on 22.02.2008 on which date the defendant No.2 appeared and prayed for allowing him to sign and verify the written statement vide petition No.241/08 dated 22.02.2008 but his prayer was not allowed. The defendant No.2 thereafter approached this Court through Civil Revision Petition No.120/2008. The revision was dismissed at motion stage, however, giving liberty to the defendants to approach the learned trial court for acceptance of the proper written statement by filing an application showing sufficient ground. Thereafter, the defendants filed written statement on 04.06.2008 through one Sanjib Baruah who is stated to be the authorized person by all the defendants. Plaintiff filed an objection contending, inter alia, that the written statement was not maintainable as it was not filed within the statutory period of limitation and the written statement filed is also a defective one. According to the plaintiff, the subsequent written statement cannot be accepted as it was filed beyond the period of limitation of 90 days and prayed for rejection thereof by application dated 16.06.2008. 3. According to the plaintiff, the subsequent written statement cannot be accepted as it was filed beyond the period of limitation of 90 days and prayed for rejection thereof by application dated 16.06.2008. 3. The learned trial court after considering the application of the defendants and the objection filed thereto by the plaintiff passed the impugned order accepting the written statement on record and proceeded to decide the case on merit. The learned trial court observed that the first written statement was not filed by the defendant No.2 for which the second written statement was filed on the basis of the leave granted by the Hon’ble High Court in CRP No.120/2008 showing sufficient cause. Having considered the averments made in the application and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned trial court was of the view that the defendants made out sufficient cause warranting acceptance of written statement beyond the statutory period and accordingly it was accepted. 4. Mr. P.B. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously urged that the written statement filed on 04.06.2008 by the defendants was under the signature of one Sanjib Baruah who is a third party and was never authorized by the defendants. Under such circumstances, the learned trial court committed an error in accepting the written statement. According to Mr. Mazumdar, the written statement ought to have been filed by the defendant No.2 who has been described to have been authorized by the defendants to file the written statement. Once attention of the learned counsel was drawn to the verification of the written statement filed on 04.06.2008 that the person who had verified the written statement claimed to have been authorized by the defendants, the learned counsel retorted that such a claim is not based by any material available on record and so acceptance of the written statement was erroneous. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the order sheets of Money Suit No.61/2007 as well as the written statement dated 04.06.2008 filed therein it appears that the written statement has been signed and verified by one Sanjib Baruah. The recital made in the verification shows that the person who has signed the written statement and verified it claimed to have been totally authorized by the defendants for the purpose. The recital made in the verification shows that the person who has signed the written statement and verified it claimed to have been totally authorized by the defendants for the purpose. Under Order VI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader 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. Thus, signing of a pleading by any person other than a party is permissible under Order VI Rule 14 of the CPC. Besides, in a catena of judgments it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court of the country that defects in verification and affidavit is curable. For instance, in the case of Raghu Mahesh vs. Rajendra Pratap reported in (2004)1 SCC 46, the same view has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Having considered the recital of Order VI Rule 14 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghu Mahesh (supra) it appears that even if a written statement or a plaint presented before the Court is found to be not duly signed or verified, in that event, that defect is a mere curable one and learned court is supposed to give a scope to the party to cure the defect. Even after giving scope to cure the defect if the same is not cured, in that event, it would be a different question. Here, in the present case, Sanjib Baruah has claimed to be the person authorized to sign the written statement. His claim of being authorized comes within the meaning of proviso to Rule 14 of Order VI of the CPC. Whether, in fact, such authorization was there or not will be a matter of evidence and can definitely be challenged in appropriate time when the trial shall commence. Here is a case where the suit was instituted in the year 2007 and written statement was accepted in the year 2010 and thereafter at the instance of the plaintiff the records were called for and the same has been pending here for last five years. Trial is yet to commence although nine years have already elapsed. 6. Here is a case where the suit was instituted in the year 2007 and written statement was accepted in the year 2010 and thereafter at the instance of the plaintiff the records were called for and the same has been pending here for last five years. Trial is yet to commence although nine years have already elapsed. 6. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the law as noted above, this Court does not feel it is a fit case for exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial court and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the authority of the person who had signed the written statement in course of evidence after the trial would commence. Send down the records immediately. Interim order passed earlier stands automatically vacated. No order as to cost.