Plaint signature defect is a waivable irregularity, and contractual resale terms can govern damages on refusal to accept goods.

A defect in the plaint signature or verification did not render the suit a nullity where the action had been instituted and prosecuted through counsel with the plaintiffs' authority, and no earlier objection was taken; the irregularity was treated as procedural and waivable, so the suit was not dismissed on that ground. On damages, the court upheld the contractual resale clause and accepted the measure based on the difference between the contract price and the resale proceeds after refusal to accept the goods; the lower courts' assessment was therefore sustained. The appeal failed and the decrees below were affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of the plaintiffs' signatures on the plaint invalidated the suit or could be treated as a waivable procedural irregularity not affecting the merits or jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the proper measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the resale price realised on the defendant's refusal to accept the goods.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of the plaintiffs' signatures on the plaint invalidated the suit or could be treated as a waivable procedural irregularity not affecting the merits or jurisdiction.

Analysis: The plaint had been filed and prosecuted throughout by an advocate purporting to represent the plaintiffs, and there was no prior challenge to his authority or to the institution of the suit. The defect in signature was treated as one of form rather than substance. It was held that the Code contemplated amendment of such defects and that a failure to comply with the signature requirement did not convert the plaint into nullity. Since the defect did not affect the merits or the jurisdiction of the Court, and had been waived by failure to object earlier, interference on that ground was barred.

Conclusion: The objection based on the defective signature of the plaint failed and the suit was not liable to be dismissed on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the proper measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the resale price realised on the defendant's refusal to accept the goods.

Analysis: The claim for damages matched the contractual clause governing the transaction. The Court accepted the later full-bench view that such a clause justified awarding the difference between the contract price and the amount realised on resale. Section 107 of the Contract Act was held inapplicable on the facts, and the lower courts were found to have adopted the correct measure of damages.

Conclusion: The measure of damages adopted by the courts below was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the procedural objection and the challenge to damages, and the decrees below were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A defect in the signature or verification of a plaint does not, by itself, render the suit a nullity where the suit was instituted and prosecuted with the plaintiff's authority and the defect neither affects the merits nor the jurisdiction of the Court; agreed contractual resale terms may govern the measure of damages on refusal to accept goods.

---