Curable defect in plaint verification allows relation back, preventing limitation from defeating the suit where filing was authorised.

A plaint signed and verified by an authorised agent, rather than by the plaintiffs themselves, was held to be a curable procedural irregularity under Order VI Rules 14 and 15 CPC where the plaintiffs had authorised the filing. Once the plaintiffs later signed and verified the plaint, the defect stood cured and the amendment related back to the original date of institution. The court held that the suit was not rendered a nullity and the limitation objection could not succeed merely because the plaint was not properly signed at the outset.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint, signed and verified by an authorised agent instead of the plaintiffs, was a mere formal defect capable of later cure so that the amendment would relate back to the date of institution, and the suit would not be barred by limitation.

Analysis: Order VI Rules 14 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure require pleadings to be signed and verified by the party, but a defect in signature or verification by an authorised agent is procedural and does not make the suit a nullity where the party had authorised the filing. The later signing and verification by the plaintiffs cured the defect, and the amendment had to be treated as effective from the date the suit was originally presented. The limitation objection could not prevail merely because the plaint was not properly signed at the outset.

Conclusion: The defect was only formal, the amendment related back to the date of institution, and the suit was not time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: A defect in signing or verifying a plaint by an authorised agent is a curable procedural irregularity, and once cured, the pleading relates back to the original presentation unless the defect goes to the root of institution.

---