Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs Mohan Singh on 13 February, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR482
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhan, J.
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :- Plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,200/- (Rs. 2,500/- as principal and Rs. 700/- as interest there to at the rate of 1 per cent per month). The cause of action is based on a pronote and receipt executed on September 29, 1973 at village Narur. The said amount was agreed to be paid back by the defendant on demand along with interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month (interest claim in the suit is only 1 per cent per month).
2. Defendant, in the written statement, admitted the execution of pronote but denied having received any consideration thereunder and the plea taken by him is that the plaintiff who happens to be one of his near relatives had come to him and told him that he should execute a pronote of Rs. 2,500/- in favour of the plaintiff and that the purpose to get such an instrument executed was that it was to be shown to the person who was being persuaded to stand as a surety for him in the matter of issuance of passport for his going abroad- Further plea taken was that pronote was executed at Hoshiarpur where the defendant resides and, therefore, the Courts at Phagwara, which is a part of district Kapurthala, did not have the territorial jurisdiction. Another plea taken was that plaint had not been signed and verified by Mohan Singh, plaintiff himself or by a duly authorised person. Plea of suit being barred by limitation was also taken. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the pronote in question is without consideration ? OPD.
2. Whether the plaint was signed and verified by a duly authorised person ? OPP.
3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit? OPD
4. Whether the pronote is net admissible in evidence as alleged in para No. 3 of the written statement ? OPD.
4a. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.
5. Relief.
Trial Court decided issues No. 2 and 4a in favour of the defendant ho ding that the suit had been filed beyond limitation and the plaint was not duly verified by the plaintiff himself or his duly authorised agent on the date when it was filed and that the verification of the plant was done after the expiry of limitation and, therefore, the suit filer was beyond limitation. Under issue No. 1 it was held that the pronote and receipt was executed for consideration. Issues No, 3 and 4 were not pressed before the trial Court and hence no finding was recorded and accordingly for the findings recorded under issues No. 2 and 4a the suit was ordered to be dismissed.
3. In appeal, the first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 1 regarding the pronote having been duly executed and for consideration; findings of the trial Court on issues No. 2 and 4a were reversed and it was held that the suit was within limitation; that even if there was any defect in the signing/verification of the plaint at the time of filing of the suit, the same stood cured when the plaint was duly signed and verified by the authorised agent at a later stage. Findings on issue Nos. 3 and 4 were not challenged. Appeal was accepted. Judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit it was ordered to be decreed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. I have gone through both the judgments i.e. of the trial Court as well as that of the appellate Court and the evidence presention the record. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that the receipt was duly executed and for consideration. The same being pure finding of fact, I affirm the same. Otherwise also, I have gone through the statement of Gurdev Singh and Hazara Singh, whose signatures appear on the pronote and the receipt as scribe and marginal witness, respectively They have stated in unmistakeable terms that the pronote and receipt were written at the instance of defendant after he received a cash amount of Rs, 2,500/- from the plaintiff in their presence and that he had put his signatures on the same after admitting the contents thereof to be correct.
5. The next point for consideration is regarding the suit being within limitation The pronote was executed on 29th September, 1973. The suit was filed on 28tn September, 1976 On the date of filing of the plaint it had not been signed or verified either by the plaintiff himself or by his duly appointed attorney. The plaint was signed by Shri Sharda Ram, Advocate, who represented the plaintiff. Shri Sharda Ram, Advocate, was called upon to call his client to sign the plaint and the verification appended thereto. In pursuance of the said order, the plaint was signed by Shrimati Hardev Kaur, wife of the plaintiff, who had also been appointed as his attorney through a deed executed on 4th July, 1977. The plea raised by the counsel for the defendant-appellant-is that the plaint had been filed on 28th September, 1976 without signatures and verification, which was signed and verified by Smt. Hardev Kaur for the first time on July 29, 1977, much after the expiry of three years of the execution of the instrument and it could not be said to have been authenticated by her on behalf of the plaintiff within the period of limitation, especially when the" power of attorney in her favour had also been executed after the institution of the suit, i.e. on 4th July, 1977.
7. I do not find any substance in this submission Irregularity in the signature or verification of the plaint is a mere defect of procedure which can be rectified at a later stage. An omission or mistake in signatures is not fatal to the suit and the same can be cured at a later stage. Although, decisions of various Courts as to whether the defects of non-signing and due verification of the plaint are of substance or of procedure, are not uniform but the predominant view is that the irregularity in the signatures or verification of plaint (sic) a mere defect of procedure. So far as this Court is concerned; a learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur v. Smt. Gulab Kaur, (1977) 79 P. L. R. 185. has taken a view that such a defect amounts to a mere irregularity and can be ignored for rejecting the plaint. It has been held as under :-
"Order VI, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code (hereinfter referred to as the Code) requires that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any). A plaint can also be signed by any person, duly authorised by the plaintiff, in case the plaintiff is absent. It is not disputed that Gurdial Kaur had not signed the plaint, rather it was signed by her lawyer. The plaint has also not been verified by Gurdial Kaur, rather it has been verified by her counsel. Under Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code verification of the plaint can be made by any person, proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. In the instant case Shri Krishan Mohan Jauhar counsel for Gurdial Kaur, verified the plaint saying that paras Nos. 1 to 8 were told to him by the plaintiff after getting personal knowledge about them and that paras Nos. 4 to 7 were correct according to her knowledge and belief. The counsel for Gurdial Kaur is presumed to be acquainted with the facts of the case, so the verification of the claim made by him, can be accepted. Moreover, it is a defect which can amount to an irregularity and can be ignored for rejecting the plaint. The legal position is, that want of verification has not the effect of making the plaint void. It merely amounts to an irregularity. So far as the question of signing the pleading is concerned, the decisions are not uniform as to whether the defects are of substance or of procedure. The prominent view is that an irregularity in the signatures of a plaint is a mere defect of procedure and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court."
8. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
9. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.