JUDGMENT

D.S. Mathur, J. - This writ petition arises out of a suit Under Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act. The suit was instituted on 28-6-1952. The matter went upto the Board of Revenue when the suit was remanded for a fresh hearing. It was thereafter that the Respondents raised an objection to the institution of the suit, namely, that it had not been signed by Bajrang Bahadur Singh named in the plaint as a co-Plaintiff. Bajrang Bahaur Singh then signed the plaint and the suit was deemed to have been instituted on that date. It was for this reason that the suit was held to be barred by limitation. The Judicial Officer, Kunda, recorded a finding on the other issues also, but the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue hearing the First Appeal and Second Appeal, respectively, maintained the order of the Judicial Officer, on the ground that the suit shall be deemed to have been properly presented, when it was signed by Bajrang Bahadur Singh, but by that time it was barred by limitation.

2. Order IV, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure and Order VI, Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure govern the presentation and signing of the plaint. These provisions correspond to Sections 48 and 51 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, 1877. The Privy Council had the occasion to consider the effect of these sections in the case of Mohini Mohun Das and Ors. v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das and Ors. ILR 17 Cal. 580. Considering that the existing provisions are similar, the rule laid down by the Privy Council can still be regarded to be a good law. Consequently, the plaint bearing the name of two Plaintiffs but presented and signed by only one shall be deemed to have been presented on the initial date of presentation even though the other Plaintiff signs the plaint at a much later date. Therefore, the plaint when signed by Bajrang Bahadur Singh shall be deemed to have been presented on the date it had originally been filed. A similar view was expressed in Bibi Asghari and Anr. v. Muhammad Kasim and Ors. A.I.R. 1951 Pat 323 and All India Reporter Ltd. Bombay v. Ram Chandra Dhonda Datar A.I.R. 1961 Bom. 292.

3. The next point for consideration is whether the plaints in revenue suits are governed by Order IV, Rule 1 and Order VI, Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure, or a special procedure has been laid down in the UP Tenancy Act.

4. My attention was drawn to Sections 180 and 246 of the UP Tenancy Act in support of the contention that the plaint must be signed by all the Plaintiffs.

5. Section 243 of the UP Tenancy Act lays down that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all suits or proceedings under this Act except in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or are excluded under List I. The section also provides that the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply subject to the modifications contained in List II of the Second Schedule. Orders IV and VI are not contained in List I, nor has any modification thereto been indicated in List II. These two provisions shall, therefore, apply unless they are inconsistent with Sections 180 and 246 of the UP Tenancy Act.

6. Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act can suggest that the suit must be instituted by all the persons entitled to admit the Defendant to occupy the plot. Similarly, Sub-section (1) of Section 246 provides that where there are two or more co-sharers in any right, title or interest all things, required or permitted to be done by the possessor of the same, shall be done by them, conjointly, unless they have appointed an agent to act on behalf of all of them. Reading the two sections together it can be said that the suit Under Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act must be instituted by all the land-holders. These sections merely lay down who the Plaintiffs shall be and not how the plaint shall be presented, or shall be signed and verified. For presentation, signing and verification the other rules shall be applicable and these rules are those contained in Orders IV and VI of t