Skip to content


Uttamram Vithaldas Vs. Thakordas Parshottamdas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Extraordinary Application No. 35 of 1921
Judge
Reported in(1921)23BOMLR911
AppellantUttamram Vithaldas
RespondentThakordas Parshottamdas
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order iv, rule plaint-vakilpatra-signed by plaintiff's servant who was not his recognized agent-no proper presentation.;the plaintiff filed a suit, on 23rd october 1920, in which the plaint and the vakilpatra were signed not by the plaintiff but by his servant who was not his recognized agent. on 3rd december 1920, when the fact came to the notice of the trial judge, he dismissed the suit. the plaintiff having applied :-;that though the plaint was not duly presented nor duly signed on the 23rd october 1920, yet the plaintiff should have been allowed to sign the plaint and present it on the 3rd december 1920. - .....presented on the 2brd october 1920 signed by vithaldas, a servant of the plaintiff, while the vakilpatra of the vakil was also signed by vithaldas. when these facts came to the notice of the judge on the 3rd december 1920, he found that the plaint was not properly signed and not properly presented, by the plaintiff, and that the pleader presenting the plaint was not duly authorized, and, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs. we think he was right in holding that the plaint was not duly presented and not duly signed, as the plaintiff made uo effort to prove that vithaldas was his recognized agent trading on his behalf while he was away from the jurisdiction. but we think that if the plaintiff had applied to be allowed to sign the plaint and present it on that day, he should have.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff sued to recover the balance due in Samvat 1973 from the defendant and the pried of goods supplied is Samvats 1973 and 1974, and for a further amount of Rs. 35 odd. The plaint was first presented on the 2brd October 1920 signed by Vithaldas, a servant of the plaintiff, while the Vakilpatra of the Vakil was also signed by Vithaldas. When these facts came to the notice of the Judge on the 3rd December 1920, he found that the plaint was not properly signed and not properly presented, by the plaintiff, and that the pleader presenting the plaint was not duly authorized, and, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs. We think he was right in holding that the plaint was not duly presented and not duly signed, as the plaintiff made uo effort to prove that Vithaldas was his recognized agent trading on his behalf while he was away from the jurisdiction. But we think that if the plaintiff had applied to be allowed to sign the plaint and present it on that day, he should have been allowed to do so. Then of course the question of limitation would arise. We have nothing to do at present with that. So that to that extent the Rule will be made absolute, the decree dismissing the suit will be set aside and the plaintiff will have an opportunity of having his suit considered as if it was tiled on the 3rd December 1920. The plaintiff must pay the costs up to date.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //