Madras High Court
M.Vairavan vs R.V.Periannan Chettiar on 13 April, 2006
Author: S.R.Singharavelu
Bench: S.R.Singharavelu
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Dated : 13/04/2006 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.R.Singharavelu Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.517 of 2004 and C.M.P.No.1178 of 2005 M.Vairavan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. R.V.Periannan Chettiar 2. R.V.Sathappa Chettiar 3. Meenakshi Achi 4. R.Vaduganathan 5. R.Periannan 6. M.Meenal .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as stated therein. !For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan ^For Respondents .. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy,S.C. for Mr.D.Rajendiran. :ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order and decretal order dated 24.11.2004 made in I.A.No.293 of 2004 in O.S.No.45 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Court, Sivagangai, in allowing the Respondent/4th Plaintiff to act as Power Agent for the other plaintiffs 3 to 7.
2. The suit was on a pro-note and as one among the three brothers/creditors viz., Ramanathan died, his widow, 2 sons and 2 daughters were respectively impleaded as Plaintiffs 3 to 7. The 4th plaintiff was said to be the Power of Attorney of his mother and co-born. At that time when the plaint was presented as no such document of Power of Attorney was annexed, the plaint was returned. Subsequently, the parties by inadvertence have failed to submit the same. The case is posted for arguments. It is at that stage the petition culminating into the impugned order was filed to permit the Respondent/4th plaintiff to act as Power of Agent of other plaintiffs 3 to 7 and as no prejudice was caused and for the reason that thenceforth it was acted upon, that 4th plaintiff was considered to be the Power of Attorney of remaining plaintiffs 3 to 7, the trial Court by its impugned order has allowed the application and aggrieved over the same, the defendant has preferred this Revision.
3. The suit is of the year 2000 based upon the pro-note dated 25.2.1997 for a sum of Rs. one lakh. Now ten years had elapsed. At that time when the suit is going to be disposed, the Respondent/4th Plaintiff thought it fit to file this application in order to avoid his being non-suited on technical ground. Whether the acceptability of allowing of such application filed under Order III Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. at the stage when the case was posted for argument is sustainable is the question before us.
4. This position was answered in M.C.S.Rajan and Company v. National Nail Industries, Tiruchirapalli and others [(1975)II MLJ 490] in the following lines:-
"The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money due on accounts. The plaint was verified by the manager of the plaintiff. The Power of attorney was not filed at the time of filing the suit but was produced at the time of filing the suit but was produced at the time of the trial. The defendant raised an issue that the suit was not maintainable since it was not signed by the plaintiff and the manager had not produced the authority at the of institution of the suit. On the question of maintainability of the suit, Held, under Order 6, rules 14 and 15, Civil Procedure Code, the pleading could be signed or verified, as the case may be, by any person duly authorised by the person who has to sign the same. ... The case has to be decided on the elementary principles of ratification of an act by a principal. Under sections 196 and 199 of the Indian Contract Act, an act done by one person on behalf of another, but without his knowledge or authority, may be ratified by that other and if that other so elects to ratify the same, effect will follow as if the act was performed by that other.
The manager had the requisite authority to present the plaint, sign the same and verify the same and if this is accepted on a broad common law principle based on ratification of the act by the principal then it follows that the suit was maintainable."
5. Relying upon the above cited case, in a later case reported in M/s. Sugesan and Company Private Limited v. Pachaiayappa's Trust and Scheduled Public Trust and Ednowments represented by the Committee of Management, Madras and others [1998 III MLJ 249], it was held that defect in the verification of plaint cannot defeat the claim of the plaintiff and irregularity in verification at the time of filing of suit will be cured by the authority filed later.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another [2006 (37) AIC (S.C.)] in the following lines:-
"Here again it has always been recognized that if a plaint is not signed by the plaintiff or his duly authorised agent due to any bona fide error, the defect can be permitted to be rectified either by the Trial Court at any time before judgment, or even by the Appellate Court by permitting appropriate amendment, when such defect comes to its notice during hearing."
7. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that where the procedural defect was not rectified even after it was pointed out and even due opportunity was given for rectifying it, that will be an exception in the general proposition that procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat. which could cause injustice . It was pointed out even at the time of plaint that it was returned for the said purpose and by lapse of time the defect was not rectified in time. But there was no prejudice caused to the other side. It is not as if the further proceedings of the suit was belated on the ground of non production of the said document Power of Attorney. In fact this is a ground on which the trial Court has allowed the application.
8. I find no perversity in the order dated 24.11.2004 made in I.A.No.293 of 2004 in O.S.No.45 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Court, Sivagangai, in allowing the Respondent/4th Plaintiff to act as Power Agent for the other plaintiffs 3 to 7 and the same is confirmed. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1178 of 2005 is closed.
gr.
To The Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai.
S.R.SINGHARAVELU,J