TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1917 (12) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case are unusual. A suit was brought in the court of the Munsif by one Chajju Mal against Jas Earn upon a promissory note alleged to have been given by the defendant on the 31st of December, 1913, for Rs. 150, with interest at Re, 14 per cent, per mensum. The claim was for Rs. 216-14, only. The plaint was filed about the 22nd of December, 1916, and the claim would therefore have been barred in a few days. 3. Paragraph 2 of the written statement alleged that the plaintiff was in jail, that the suit had not been presented on his behalf, and that the permission of the jail authorities had not been given to the plaintiff's signature. The following issue was framed:---I. "Whether the suit was properly and duly filed on behalf of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition to speak to it. To talk of forgery under such circumstances is of course out of the question. 7. I will assume that the plaintiff's signature was appended so as to constitute a breach of the jail regulations. I will assume further, though it is by no means proved, that he did not write it himself, although he had authorized the suit, and that although he might have authorized some one to sign his own name, he was prepared, or badly advised, under a mistaken fear of the consequences of telling the truth, to commit perjury by swearing that a signature written by some one for him was written by himself. There is not, so far as I can see, in the absence of a repudiation of his signature by the plaintiff himself, a scrap of eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned and exhaustive examination of the Jail Manual and Regulations. These are wholly irrelevant. He says they have the force of law. This does not mean that they alter the general law. A plaint signed or a suit authorized, by a man in jail, is just as good as any other plaint or suit, however many jail regulations are broken. The breach of regulations whether by the prisoner, his friends or pleader, are matters for the Jail authorities, or the Local Government, or whoever has the duty of enforcing them or punishing their breach. They no doubt have the force of law, but they cannot destroy a cause of action or invalidate a plaint. The second part of the second plea in the written statement which raised this point ought to have been struck ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....latter part of order VI, rule 14, enabling a person duly authorized by the party when the party is unable to sign the pleading himself to sign for him makes this clear. In the present case I see no reason why Bakhtawar Singh could not have signed for the plaintiff. I delivered a judgement recently myself upon this very point where I endeavoured to make it clear. But there is abundant authority, if any were required, for such an obvious proposition; cf. Basdeo v. John Smidt I.L.R (1899) 22 All. 55 decided in this Court many years ago. 12. But the most unfortunate incident of the whole case is the proceeding of the 19th of April, when the plaintiff presented himself in the box, and the Munsif disallowed a most obvious, necessary and proper....