JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Whether the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory or directory is the question that falls for consideration in both these petitions? 2. The application field by the petitioners for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non-compliance of provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 CPC requiring all the parties to sign the pleadings have not been complied with, therefore, the plaint should be dismissed. The application was rejected by learned Court below, constraining the petitioners to file the instant petitions. 3. Order 6 Rule 14 CPC reads thus:- "Pleadings to be signed Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any): Provided that where a party pleadings 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." 4. Even though the word "shall" has been used, however, the signing of plaint is merely a matter of procedure and the plaint cannot be rejected on this ground. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment rendered by this Court more than four decades back in Karam Singh vs. Ram Rachhpal Singh and others, (1977) AIR H.P. 28. 5. In addition to the above, another provision of law contained in Order 3 Rule 4 CPC needs to be noticed and the same reads thus:- "Appointment of pleader (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such a person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment. (2) Every such appointment shall be (filed in court and shall, for the purposes of sub-rule (1), be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client. Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-rule, the following shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit,- (a) an application for the review of decree or order in the suit; (b) an application under section 144 or under section 152 of this code, in relation to an decree or order made in the suit, (c) an appeal from any decree or order in the suit, and (d) any application or act for the purpose of obtaining copies of documents or return of documents produced or filed in the suit or of obtaining refund of moneys paid into the court in connection with the suit. (3) Nothing in sub-rule (2) shall be construed- (a) as extending, as between the pleader and his client, the duration for which the pleader is engaged, or (b) as authorizing service on the pleader of any notice or document issued by any court other than the court for which the pleader was engaged, except where such service was expressly agreed to by the client in the document referred to in sub-rule(1). (4) The High Court may, by general order, direct that, where the person by whom a pleader is appointed is unable to writ his name, his mark upon the document appointing the pleader shall be attested by such person and in such manner as may be specified by the order. (5) No pleader who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and stating- (a) the names of the parties to the suit, (b) the name of the party for whom he appears, and (c) the name of the person by whom he is authorized to appear. Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who has been duly appointed to act in court on behalf of such party. 6. It is not in dispute that the plaint is duly signed by the Advocate, who also filed his power of attorney. Once that be so, then the mere fact that the plaint has not been signed by all the plaintiffs, as has been contended, would not be of any consequences, much less, entailing the dismissal of the suit. 6. It is not in dispute that the plaint is duly signed by the Advocate, who also filed his power of attorney. Once that be so, then the mere fact that the plaint has not been signed by all the plaintiffs, as has been contended, would not be of any consequences, much less, entailing the dismissal of the suit. Such omissions or defects "if at all considered to be a defect" is one of procedure and can therefore be corrected subsequently. 7. Here it shall apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another, (2006) 1 SCC 75 , wherein dealing with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 CPC, it was observed as under:- "16. An analogous provision is to be found in Order 6 Rule 14 CPC which requires that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader, if any. Here again, it has always been recognised that if a plaint is not signed by the plaintiff or his duly authorized agent due to any bona fide error, the defect can be permitted to be rectified either by the trial court at any time before judgment, or even by the appellate court by permitting appropriate amendment, when such defect comes to its notice during hearing. 17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rjection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well-recognised exceptions to this principle are:- (i) Where the statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of noncompliance; (ii) Where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it; (iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous; (iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court; (v) in case of memorandum of appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant. 8. What appears to be more than settled is that the Court cannot dismiss the suit merely because the plaint has not been signed by all the plaintiffs. The omission to sign or verify a plaint is not such a defect as could effect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court or much less entail rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 9. Even otherwise, it is settled law that any defect in signing of the complaint or memorandum of appeal or any defect in the authority of the person signing the plaint or memorandum of appeal or omission to file the Vakalatnama will not invalidate the plaint or the appeal, more particularly, if such omission or defect is not deliberate, such omission or defect one being relating to procedure can subsequently be corrected. 10. Here, in the present case, as observed above, the plaint has been duly signed by the Pleader/Advocate, duly authorised by the plaintiff, therefore, the question of non-compliance of order 6 Rule 14 CPC otherwise did not arise for consideration before the learned Court below. 11. Having said so, I find no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. However, before parting, it is made clear that despite this order, the Court has not touched upon the facts of the case except to the extent indicated above, therefore, all question of facts are left open between the parties.