Curable defect in appeal papers cannot justify dismissal without opportunity to rectify before rejection.

A curable defect in an appeal memo, such as the absence of the appellants' signatures on the memo of appeal and verification, cannot justify dismissal without first allowing rectification. Where the appeal papers were signed by authorised counsel under vakalatnama and no opportunity was given to cure the defect, rejection on that technical ground was unjustified. The appellate order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for removal of the defect and fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal could be dismissed for want of signatures on the memo of appeal and verification without first affording an opportunity to cure the defect.

Analysis: The appeal papers were signed by counsel authorised through vakalatnama. The defect, if any, arising from the absence of the appellants' own signatures on the memo of appeal and verification was not shown to be incurable. No opportunity had been given to remove the defect before dismissing the appeals. A dismissal on that technical ground, without hearing the appellants and without permitting rectification, was held to be unjustified.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeals was held unsustainable and the matter was sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to permit removal of the defect and decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside and the appeals were restored for fresh adjudication after curing the procedural defect.

Ratio Decidendi: A curable defect in the presentation of an appeal cannot be treated as fatal and the appellant must be given an opportunity to rectify it before the appeal is rejected on technical grounds.

---