Plaint defects are curable procedural irregularities, and later correction relates back to the original filing date.

Defects in signing, verification and presentation of a plaint were treated as procedural irregularities, not conditions affecting the existence of the suit. A plaint signed by one of several plaintiffs was sufficient, and presentation was not confined to the plaintiff personally or to a particular authorised agent. Although verification by a person not shown to know the facts was defective, it remained a curable irregularity. Once corrected, the amendment related back to the original date of presentation, so the suit was not treated as instituted only from the date of rectification. The company's conversion from private to public did not alter its identity or invalidate the suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether defects in the signing, verification and presentation of the plaint rendered the suit non est or barred by limitation, and whether such defects could be cured later with retrospective effect.

Analysis: The rules governing signing, verification and presentation of a plaint were treated as procedural and not as conditions going to the existence of the suit. A plaint signed by one of several plaintiffs was sufficient. Presentation of the plaint was not confined to the plaintiff personally or to a particular authorized agent. Verification by a person who was neither a plaintiff nor shown to be acquainted with the facts was a defect, but it was still a curable irregularity. Where such defects are corrected later, the correction relates back to the original date of presentation, and the suit is not deemed instituted only from the date of rectification. The conversion of the company from private to public did not alter its identity so as to invalidate the suit.

Conclusion: The defects in the plaint did not make the suit time-barred, and the suit was held to have been instituted on the original date despite the irregularities.

---