9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Proper signing, verification, and presentation of the plaint. 2. Rectification of defects in signing or verification after the suit has commenced. 3. Validity of a power of attorney executed by a private limited company after its conversion into a public limited company. 4. Compliance with rules regarding signature, verification, and presentation by all plaintiffs. Detailed Analysis 1. Proper Signing, Verification, and Presentation of the Plaint The court examined the provisions under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), specifically Order 4, Rule 1; Order 6, Rule 14; Order 6, Rule 15; Order 3, Rule 1; Order 3, Rule 2; and Order 7, Rule 11. The court noted that Order 6, Rule 14 requires every pleading to be signed by the party and his pleader, and Order 6, Rule 15 mandates that pleadings be verified by a party acquainted with the facts. The court emphasized that these requirements are procedural rather than substantive. 2. Rectification of Defects in Signing or Verification The court discussed whether defects in signing or verification could be rectified after the suit had commenced. It concluded that such defects are procedural irregularities that can be cured at any time, even after the period of limitation has expired. The court cited various precedents, including ILR 47 Bom 227 and ILR 1937 Bom 85, which held that defects in signing or verification do not invalidate the plaint and can be corrected subsequently. 3. Validity of Power of Attorney Post-Conversion The court addressed whether a power of attorney executed by a private limited company remains valid after its conversion into a public limited company. The court noted that the identity of the company does not change upon conversion, only its nature does. Therefore, the power of attorney remains valid unless it fails to meet specific requirements, such as bearing the company's seal as mandated by the Articles of Association. 4. Compliance by All Plaintiffs The court considered whether all plaintiffs must comply with the rules regarding signature, verification, and presentation. It referred to the Privy Council's decision in ILR 17 Cal 580, which held that a plaint signed by at least one plaintiff is sufficient. In the present case, the plaint was signed by Plaintiff No. 2, who was also the Managing Director of Plaintiff No. 1, thereby fulfilling the requirement. Conclusion The court concluded that defects in the signing, verification, or presentation of the plaint are procedural irregularities that do not invalidate the suit. The rectification of these defects relates back to the original date of the suit's institution. Therefore, the suit was deemed to have been instituted on the original date of filing, making it within the period of limitation. The appeal was dismissed, and the suit was considered valid despite the procedural irregularities.
|
