Defects in signing, verifying, or presenting the plaint are mere irregularities of procedure and do not make the suit ineffective or void. If defects are cured at a later stage, they relate back to the original date of filing the suit.

Headnote:
Order 4, Rule 1; Order 6, Rule 14; Order 6, Rule 15; Order 3, Rule 1; Order 3, Rule 2; Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code were analyzed by the court. The court concluded that defects in signing, verifying, or presenting the plaint are mere irregularities of procedure and do not make the suit ineffective or void. If defects are cured at a later stage, they relate back to the original date of filing the suit. The court also held that the plaint in this case was properly signed by one of the plaintiffs, and the presentation of the plaint by the pleader of one of the plaintiffs was proper. However, the verification of the plaint was not proper as it was not done by a person acquainted with the facts of the case. Despite this irregularity, the court held that the suit was within the limitation period.
Fact of the Case:
The plaint in this case was not properly signed, verified, or presented on behalf of plaintiff No. 1, a company. Objections were raised by the defendant, and the trial court held that the plaint was not properly signed and verified. The High Court held that the trial court had the power to ask for rectification of the defect, but did not decide the question of limitation. The defendant pleaded the bar of limitation, and the trial court upheld this contention. The main issues were: (1) who has to sign, verify, and present the plaint; (2) can defects in signing and verification be removed at a later date; (3) can a person holding power of attorney for a private limited company sign and verify a plaint on behalf of a public limited company; and (4) do the rules regarding signing, verification, and presentation of the plaint apply to all plaintiffs in a case. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and considered previous case law. It concluded that defects in signing, verifying, or presenting the plaint are mere irregularities of procedure and do not make the suit ineffective or void. The court also held that if defects are cured at a later stage, they relate back to the original date of filing the suit. The court further determined that the plaint in this case was properly signed by one of the plaintiffs, and the presentation of the plaint by the pleader of one of the plaintiffs was proper. However, the verification of the plaint was not proper as it was not done by a person acquainted with the facts of the case. Despite this irregularity, the court held that the suit was within the limitation period.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and considered previous case law. It concluded that defects in signing, verifying, or presenting the plaint are mere irregularities of procedure and do not make the suit ineffective or void. The court also held that if defects are cured at a later stage, they relate back to the original date of filing the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: Defects in signing, verifying, or presenting the plaint are mere irregularities of procedure and do not make the suit ineffective or void. If defects are cured at a later stage, they relate back to the original date of filing the suit.
Result: The court dismissed the appeal and held that the suit was within the limitation period despite the irregularities in the plaint.

JUDGMENT - 1. I would like to add the following observa ons on the question of limitation.

2. In order to appreciate the points of law involved, it is necessary to state a few relevant f acts :

3. In the plaint two plaintiffs were named, nambly, (1) All India Reporter, Limited, Bombay and (2) Shri V. V. Chitaley. The plaint was signed by Shri V. V. Chitaley (Plaintiff No. 2) and by one S. 0. Ghushey who signed as agent to plaintiff No. 1. It was also verified by S- B. Ghushey as agent to plaintiff No. 1. The plaint was filed on 18-2-1949, one day prior to the expiry of tbe period of limitation. The plaint was presented by Shri Shidhaye Advocate, whose power was signed by V. V. Chitaley and S. B. Ghushey who signed as agent of plaintiff No. 1. Along with the plaint, a power of attorney by AIR Limited, in favour of S. B. Ghushey, dated 1-5-46, was filed. After the date of this power of attorney and before the date of the suit, AIR Limited was converted into a public Limited Company in 1948.

4. Objections having been taken by the defendant on the ground that the plaint was not properly signed or verified, the trial Court held on 9-4-51 that the plaint was not properly signed and verified on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 and ordered that the plaint should be properly signed and verified by someone authorized on behalf of plaintiff No. 1, either under Order 6, Rule 14, or under Order 29 Rule 1, C. P. C. In compliance with this order dated 9-4-51, S. B. Ghushey again signed the plaint and again verified it on 24-4-51 after filing a fresh power of attorney from plaintiff No. 1 dated 18-4-1951.

5. Against the order of the trial Court dated 9-4-51, holding that the plaint was not properly signed and verified on behalf of plaintiff No. 1, a revision application filed in the High Court (Civil Revision No. 395 of 1951) was decided on 18-1-1952. The High Court held that no question of jurisdiction was involved in the revision application as the trial Court undoubtedly had power to ask the party to rectify a defect in regard to signing and verification of the plaint. The High Court observed that the trial Court had not framed an issue on the point of limitation, and therefore the High Court did not decide the question of limitation in revision, but left it open to the defendant to plead the bar of Limitation.

6. Accordingly the defendant pleaded the bar of limitation before the trial Court and this contention was upheld by the trial Court on the following grounds :

1. The signature of Ghushey on the plaint and its verification by him in his capacity as agent of the AIR Limited (Plaintiff No. 1) under a power given by it when it was a private Limited Company do not enure for the benefit of the AIR Limited on the date of the institution of the suit when it had become a public Limited Company.

2. The plaint can be signed and verified by a person Orally authorized by a plaintiff to do so, but in the instant case plaintiff No. 1 is a company. Under Articles. 153(7) and 156 of the Articles of Association of the Company only the Managing Director of the Plaintiff Company had power to institute suits for plaintiff No. 1, and it is nowhere shown that he had power to authorise somebody else to sign pleadings for plaintiff No. 1. Under Art. 153 (19) of the Articles of Association of plaintiff No. 1, read with Art. 156, the Directors could confer a power of attorney under the seal of the Company upon any person to be attorney of the Company for the purposes of the powers conferred on the Directors under Art. 152 which include a power to institute and conduct suits under Art. 153(7). The power of attorney of Ghushey dated 18-4-51 does not bear the seal of the Company. An oral authorization would also not be valid in view of the Articles of Association.

3. Even if the signature of Ghushey on the plaint for plaintiff No. 1 was valid, his verification is neither proper nor authorized.

4. On 18-249, the date of the plaint, it cannot be said that Ghushey was acquainted w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document