Plaintiff Allowed to Amend Improperly Signed Plaint; HC Overrules Lower Court, Permits Correction of Formal Defect

The HC set aside the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiff's request to amend the plaint, which was improperly signed by the plaintiff's son. The Chief Justice ruled that the defect was formal and could be rectified by allowing the plaintiff to sign the plaint himself. This decision aligns with the precedent that such signing errors are not fatal to the suit and can be corrected through amendment. No costs were awarded, and the amendment was permitted to ensure compliance with proper legal procedures.

---

---

Issues:
Amendment of plaint due to improper signature by plaintiff's son.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a revision application arising from a suit filed in the Court of the Nyayadish at Ghodasar, where the plaintiff's son signed the plaint without proper authority, leading to a request for amendment by the plaintiff himself. The application for amendment was dismissed by the learned Judge, prompting this revision application. The primary issue at hand is whether the failure to sign the plaint properly is a material defect that renders the suit non-existent or merely a formal defect curable through amendment.

Two decisions of the Bombay High Court are discussed in the judgment. The first decision by Sir John Beaumont in Chunilal Bhagwanji v. Kanmal Lalchand emphasized that a defect in signing the plaint could render the suit invalid, necessitating the filing of a fresh plaint. However, this view did not consider the earlier decision in Nanjibhai v. Popatlal, where Mirza J. held that a plaint filed within the time limit could be signed later by the plaintiff, even if initially improperly signed. The judgment also references a Privy Council case, Stohini Mohwm Das v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das, where the failure of one co-plaintiff to sign the plaint was deemed immaterial, indicating that the signing requirement is a formal error, not fatal to the suit's institution.

In light of the conflicting decisions, the Chief Justice, M.C. Chagla, sets aside the lower court's order and directs the allowance of the plaintiff's amendment to strike out the son's signature and permit the plaintiff to sign the plaint. The judgment aligns with the view that the signing requirement is a formal defect that can be rectified through amendment, as established in the judgment of Mirza J. in Nanjibhai v. Popatlal. No costs are awarded in this matter, and the order for amendment is upheld, emphasizing the importance of proper signing procedures in legal proceedings while allowing for corrective measures to address formal defects.

---