Procedural defects in legal documents are curable and should not prevent the pursuit of justice, as established by the court's ruling.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of the above-mentioned revision petition(s), arising from two orders (Annexure P-10 and Annexure P-11) respectively, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bhathinda on 11.07.2024, in the suit titled Durga Dass through natural heirs and another Vs. Roshan Lal through testamentary heir.

2. In brief the facts are that LRs of deceased Durga Dass son of Ram Narain and Makhan Lal son of Ram Narain (since deceased) respondents No. 1 and 2, instituted a suit for separate possession by way of partition (Annexure P-1), against the petitioner/defendant Roshan Lal son of Radha Krishan, through his testamentary heir Bharat Bhushan. The petitioner/defendant filed the written statement (Annexure P-2) and counter claim (Annexure P-3). The respondent/plaintiffs filed the reply (Annexure P-4) to the counter claim. Thereafter, petitioner filed replication (Annexure P-5). After closing of the pleadings, issues were framed, and case was posted for evidence of respondents-plaintiffs. After completion of the respondent/plaintiffs’ evidence, case was scheduled for the petitioner’s/defendant evidence, when an objection was raised through an application (Annexures P-6), regarding non-maintainability of the suit on account of plaint being defective, not signed and verified by all legal heirs of Durga Dass and Makhan Lal except by one LR Sandeep Jindal, respondent No. 1(b). Further, Vakalatnama of the counsel was not signed by all the legal heirs, impleaded as plaintiffs. Consequently, dismissal of the suit was sought on the ground that it was no suit in the eyes of law in the absence of proper authorization. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the reply (Annexure P-7), pleading that the defect is technical and had occurred inadvertently. Thereafter, respondents moved an application (Annexures P-8) for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’). Petitioner/defendant, filed the reply (Annexure P-9), opposed the application. The learned Civil Judge passed two separate orders of even date on 11.07.2024 (Annexure P-10 in CR No. 4651 of 2024 and P-11 in CR-4653 of 2024), and allowed the application for amendment of plaint, moved by respondents/plaintiffs and dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for the dismissal of the suit, necessitating the filing of above mentioned revisions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the orders dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure P-10 in CR No. 4651 of 2024 and P-11 in CR-4653 of 2024), urged that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that application for the amendment of the plaint was moved belatedly, when the case was posted for the evidence of the petitioner and further that suit was inherently defective. In fact, it was no suit instituted in the eyes of law on behalf of all the L.Rs, having not signed the plaint and lacked proper authorization on behalf of all the plaintiffs-L.Rs on the Vakalatanama of the counsel. Learned counsel submits that learned trial Court’s observation that defect is merely procedural and curable, is indefensible in the eyes of law, indeed the defect was major and incurable. In this regard, reference was made to Order 6 Rule 17 Of CPC, stating the provisions specifically stipulates that no amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of trial, unless the party seeking facts of the present case do not demonstrate exercise of due diligence on the part of the respondents/plaintiffs. It is further submitted that without due authorization on behalf of all the LRs/plaintiffs in favour of the counsel, the plaint was allowed to be presented, which was non-est, as it did not fulfil the mandate of Order 3 Rule 1 and 4 CPC. It is stated that allowing the application has adversely affected the rights of the petitioner, as amendment would relate back to the date of filing the suit. A prayer is, therefore, made to allow both the revisions and suit of th