Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(After quoting the rule as given in para 9 the judgment proceeds).

Order 3, rule 2, describes who the recognized agents referred to in Order 3, rule 1, are. Order 3, rule 2, has been- amended by the Bombay High Court. But this amendment did net govern the plaint in the instsnt case when it was filed.

12. Order 3, rule 1, applies only to appeal-ances, applications, or acts in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be nude or done by any party in such Court. The signature on a plaint is not an appearance, or application, or act in or to any Court. The presentation of a plaint may be an act to or in a Court, but the mere act of signing a plaint would not be an act in or to a Couri. A plaint can bs signed outside the Court. It would not therefore come with-in the scope of Order 3, Rule 1 and Order 3, rule 2. The presentation of a plaint in a Court would also not be governed by Order 3, rule 1, as the presentation of a plaint is not required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party to such Court. Order 4, rule 1, which refers to presentation of a plaint, docs not require the presentation to he made or done by a party. Order

4. rule 1, merely provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. Order 4, rule 1, does not specify by whom a plaint is to be presented. A plaint can therefore be presented by any person. It can perhaps even be sons by registered Post, addressed to the Court or to the officer appointed by the Court to receive plaints, but this point need not be further considered as it does not arise in the present case.

13. The question is whether the provisions contained in Order 6 relating to signing, verification and presentation of the plaint relate merely to procedure or whether a plaint which does not strictly comply with the requirements of Order 0 would cease to be a valid plaint and would be a nullity because of such defects or irregularities. It is true that when a plaint is presented to the Court or to such officer as the Court appoints, it is open to the Court or to the officer to point out the defects or irregularities to the person pressnt-ing the suit and to require him to rectify the defects or irregularities. But can it be said that the defects or irregularities would make tho presentation of the suit itself invalid although the plaint is admitted and particulars of the plaint are entered in a register of suits as provided by Order 4, rule 2? In this connection it is necessary to note that Order 7, rule 11, which refers to the rejection of a plaint, enumerates only four cases in which a plaint has to be rejected, hut it does not enu-merate any of the d fects or irregularities referred to in Order 6, Rules 14, Order 6, Rule 15, or Order 6, Rule 2. It is clear from the prevision contained in Order 6 that these rules relate only to procedure, and the better view would be to regard them as mere matters of procedure and to hold that if a plaint is not properly signed or verified but is admitted and entered in the re-gister of suits it docs not cease to he a plaint and the suit cannot be said not to have been instituted merely because of the existence of some defects or irregularities in the matter of signing and verification of the plaint.

23. AS regards signature of the plaint, authorization by plaintiff No. 2 as Managing Director of the plaintiff No. 1 Company is quite sufficient, and it is the evidence of both plaintiff No. 2 and Ghushey that the former had authorized the latter to sign the plaint. Moreover, as already observed, this is a case of plaint with, two plaintiffs, and admittedly, one of the plaintitis, plaintiff No. 2 has signed the plaint.

24. As regards presentation of the plaint, the trial Court held that the plaint had not been properly presented as it was presented by Mr. Shidhaye, Advocate, under a Vakalatnama which bore the signature of plaintiff No. 2 and the sig-nature of Ghushey who described himself as agent of plaintiff No. 1 and who held a power of attorney from AIR Limited as it was before its conversion into a public Limited Company. I have already expressed the view that there is nothing in Order 4, Rule 1 as to who should present a plaint in the Court. There is authority in support of this view in ILR 54 All 57: (AIR 1931 All 507) (SB), a Full Bench decision, where it is observed that there is no rule which in express terms requires that the plaintiff should file the plaint personally, nor was there any rule which expressly said that it should be filed by a person holding a power of attorney on behalf of the plaintiff or otherwise duly authorized by the plaintiff. It was also observed that it is doub'ful whether Order 3 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code would apply to such a case. In AIR 1949 All 499, it was held that presentation of a plaint by a person having no power of attorney is a mere irregularity. A plaint need not be presented by the plaintiff personally or by a person duly authorized by him. In the case of a suit where there are two or more plaintiffs, presentation of the plaint by one of the plaintiffs, or, as in the instant case, by the pleader of one of the plaintiffs, would undoubtedly be a proper presentation.

28. Holding that it was only on 24-4-51 that the plaint was properly signed and verified, the trial Court held that the date of the filing of the suit must be taken to be 24-4-51. As already pointed out, the general consensus of authority of the Bombay High Court and other High Courts is in favour of the view that defects and irregularities in the matter of signing, verifying or presenting plaints are mere irregularities of procedure which do not make the suit ineffective, inoperative, or void. The existence of such defects does not mean that the suit had not been filed. Even when the plaint is amended after it is properly instituted, the amendment relates back to the date of the original plaint unless the amendment adds new parties or new properties. That is why leave to amend a plaint has ordinarily to be refused, except in very exceptional cases, if the effect of the proposed amendment is to take away from the defendant the legal right which accrued to him by lapse of time. See Charan Das v. Amir Khan AIR 1921 PC 50 : 47 Ind App 255. If the amendment is allowed, it relates back to the date of the original plaint. If is not a case of the amendment taking effect from the date ot amendment and of condoning the bar of limitation. If the amendment of the plaint is allowed, the question of limitation cannot be reserved. It is not a case of allowing the amendment of the plaint and reserving the questicn whether or not to condone the delay and the bar of limitation. If the Court feels that the bar of limitation should not be avoided, it must refuse the amendment of the plaint. After allowing the amendment the Court cannot say that the amend-ment takes effect from the date cf the amandment. Similarly, when a defective plaint is rectified and re-signed and re-verified on a subsequent date, the re-signing or the re-veri.kation of the plaint relates back to the original date. See ILR 1937 Bom 85 : AIR 1938 Bom 418, ; , and ILR 40 All 147 : AIR 1918 All 275.