A defect in the plaint which is purely formal in nature can be cured by amendment, even if the right to plead the bar of limitation has in the meantime become vested in the opposite party.

( 1 ) THIS revision application has been preferred by the plaintiff, whose suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 489/9/- on the basis of a bond has been dismissed by both lower Courts.

( 2 ) IT was alleged in the plaint that the respondent took a cash loan of Rs. 410/- on 15-11-1953 agreeing to repay the loan by instalments of Rs. 10/- per month with interest at 12% per annum. The defendant repaid only a sum of Rs. 50/ -. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed Rs. 360/- as principal, Rs. 129/- by way of interest and annas -/9/- as notice charges.

( 3 ) THE suit was originally Instituted in the name of firm 'kaluram Chhotelal'. Thereafter by an amendment of the plaint the names of Kaluram and Chhotelal as proprietors of the firm 'kaluram Chhotelal' were substituted as plaintiffs in place of the firm. The plaintiffs signed the amended plaint on 30-9-1959.

( 4 ) THE trial Court held that the suit was barred by Section 22 of the Limitation Act. This finding was, however, set aside on appeal by the learned District Judge, gwalior, who held that merely because the plaintiff's names as members of a joint hindu family firm were brought on record on 12-9-1959 it could not be said that the plaintiffs were joined as parties to the suit on that date. Relying on the decision in Balwantrao Ambaram v. Baldeodas Manilal and Co. 1957 MFC 122 the appellate Court held that Section 22 of the Limitation Act could have no application to such a case. This finding has not been challenged before me and I do not see any reason to interfere with it. The appellate Court, however, dismissed the suit on the new ground that the plaint, which was originally filed on the 15th of november, 1956, was signed by one Khemchand, who claimed to be an 'aam mukhtiyar' of the plaintiffs. The signature of the 'aam Mukhtiyar' on the plaint and its verification by him, not being in accordance with the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI C. P. C. the lower appellate Court held that the plaint should be deemed to have been duly presented only on 30-9-1959 when it, was with the permission of the Court, signed and verified by Kaluram Chhotelal.

( 5 ) EVERY pleading has, according to the provisions of Order VI Rule 14 to be signed by the party and his pleader. It is only where the party pleading is by reason of absence or for some other good cause unable to sign the pleading that the law permits it to be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same. Likewise the verification of pleadings has also to be made by the party concerned or by one of the parties pleading. All that appears on the record of this case is that the 'aam Mukhtiyar' signed the plaint under the instructions of the plaintiffs. It was held in Chandramal v. Ganpatrao 4 Nag LR 117 that it is only absence of such a kind as makes signature by the plaintiff impossible that would justify the applicability of the proviso to Rule 14.

( 6 ) IN the present case the plaintiffs were not absent and it was not impossible for them to sign the plaint. The 'aam Mukhtiyar' could, therefore, not sign and verify the plaint. In the case of Prince Line Ltd. v. Trustees of Port, Bombay, AIR 1950 bom 130 Bhagwati J. on a consi-deration of the various authorities on the point, held the the Court has the power where a plaint is not properly presented or is not signed and verified in accordance with the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of Order vi C. P. C. to allow the plaintiff to remedy the defect at a later stage, even though the period of limitation for filing the suit may already have expired. But it was observed by the learned Judge that where while allowing the amendment or granting an opportunity to the plaintiff to cure the defect, the Court reserves unto the defendant the right to plead the bar of [imitation, the plaintiff would have to meet that point whenever properly raised at any subsequent stage. Chhagla C. J. , however held in Dahyabhai v. Babaji, AIR 1953 Bom 28 that the Privy Council in mohini