The main legal point established is that the defect in signatures and verification of an appeal can be cured by allowing amendments, especially when the appeal is signed and presented by a duly authorized agent of the party.

1. While coming up this appeal for consideration of admission, a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondents/caveators that the appeal on the face of it is not maintainable being short of signatures and verification of the competent appellant and has drawn my attention to order 29 Rule ICPC which lays down:-

"In suits by or against a Corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation by the Secretary or by any Director or else by officer of the Corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case."

Mr. Ab. Majid Bhat while assisting Mr. R. Hussain has drawn my attention to order 41 Rule 1 of Civil P.C. which lays down:-

"Every appeal shall be preferred in the form of memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the court or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf......"

2. Thus learned counsel for the caveator wanted to impress upon that as because the appeal has been filed on behalf of J&K Bank which is Corporation and the pleadings are not signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation by Secretary or by any Director or by either principal officer of the Corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case and that the person of Shafat Hussain is not appellant nor the pleader on behalf of the appellants who had signed and verified the appeal in question. His locus-standi is being challenged and his status is being objected to by the respondent/caveators.

3. Mr. Shafat appearing on behalf of the J&K Bank has drawn my attention to Order 29 Rule 1 CPC and also to order 41 R1 and Rules framed there-under and has also made reliance on AIR 1923 Lahore 484, wherein their lordships Justice Shadi Lal, Chief Justice and Justice Zaffar Ali Judge have been pleased to observe as under: -

"A perusal of order 41 Rule 1 of CPC shows that a memorandum of appeal shall be signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the court or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf. The memorandum of appeal presented before the Hon™ble court was signed by one who had a general power of attorney from the appellant to appear and to act on her behalf, in the original it was also presented by him to the proper authority. It is. however, immaterial whether it was appellant herself or by some-one else. As long as it was signed by the appellant or her agent duly authorised in this behalf and presented to the proper authority this requirement of law has been fulfilled and there was no valid objection to the entertainment of the appeal."

4. It may be noted that the present appeal on behalf of the J&K Bank has been drafted, signed and presented by Mr. Shafat Hussain who is Manager Law and attorney holder of the bank. On the count, it is the person of said Shafat who has drafted the appeal and who has presented the appeal and is duly authorised person on behalf of the bank and is an official of the J&K Bank designated as Manager Law.

5. It may be also noted that even for arguments sake, it is presumed that if appeal is filed on behalf of Company by one of its officers not duly authorised to do so, the defect could be cured by putting in power of attorney duly authorising him to file appeal. This has been laid down in AIR 1910 Bombay page 1 at para 11. It has also been held in AIR 1952 H.P. 62 that the rule of signing of memorandum of appeal by the appellant or his pleader being mandatory, but the non-compliance does not necessarily entail rejection of the appeal straightway. The defect can be cured by allowing them and their memorandum of appeal to be amended by putting signatures, where the omission is not deliberate.

6. In the present case, the appeal has been signed by duly authorised agent or the attorney holder of the bank in the capacity of Attorney and Manager Law of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank. So there is no defect on the record which will entail rejection of the appeal out-rightly. So the objection put in by the caveator/respondents is not sustai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document