TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (2) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 50/-. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed Rs. 360/- as principal, Rs. 129/- by way of interest and annas -/9/- as notice charges. 3. The suit was originally Instituted in the name of firm 'Kaluram Chhotelal'. Thereafter by an amendment of the plaint the names of Kaluram and Chhotelal as proprietors of the firm 'Kaluram Chhotelal' were substituted as plaintiffs in place of the firm. The plaintiffs signed the amended plaint on 30-9-1959. 4. The trial Court held that the suit was barred by Section 22 of the Limitation Act. This finding was, however, set aside on appeal by the learned District Judge, Gwalior, who held that merely because the plaintiff's names as members of a joint Hindu family firm were brought on recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;Aam Mukhtiyar' signed the plaint under the instructions of the plaintiffs. It was held in Chandramal v. Ganpatrao 4 NLR 117 that it is only absence of such a kind as makes signature by the plaintiff impossible that would justify the applicability of the proviso to Rule 14. 6. In the present case the plaintiffs were not absent and it was not impossible for them to sign the plaint. The 'Aam Mukhtiyar' could, therefore, not sign and verify the plaint. In the case of Prince Line Ltd. v. Trustees of Port, Bombay, AIR 1950 Bom 130 Bhagwati J. on a consideration of the various authorities on the point, held that the Court has the power where a plaint is not properly presented or is not signed and verified in accordance with the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plaint. The case was, therefore, of a suit filed by a singla indivi-dual who did not sign the plaint, but permitted it to be signed by his 'kul murkhtiyar'. Still it was held by Chhagla C. J. that failure on the part of the plaintiff to sign the plaint could not vitiate the institution of the suit to such an extent that the Court must consider that the suit was not properly instituted at all. The view taken by Chhagla C. J. is in accord with the decision or a Division Bench of this Court in Sarjuprasad v. Badriprasad AIR 1939 Nag 242 according to which the provisions of Order VI Rule 14 are merely a matter of procedure. It, as was held by Chhagla, C. J., in Dahyabhai's case AIR 1959 Bom 28 (supra), failure by the plaintiff to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er stage and the suit could not be dismissed on this ground alone. 9. The case before Bhagwati J. Is distinguishable even on facts from the one before me. In that can the plaint was signed by a person who did not hold a general power of attorney. The trial Judge, therefore, adjourned the suit in order to enable the plaintiffs to grant a general power to attorney to their constituted attorneys and to enable the latter to properly sign and verify the plaint. It was, in these circumstances that the trial Judge had is that case made a reservation in favour of the defendant that the amendment shall be subject to the plea of limitation being open to the defendant. In the case before Chhagla C. J., as well as in the one before me, the plaint was ....