Skip to content


Arunachellam Chetti and ors. Vs. Prabhayya Chetti and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1913)25MLJ174
AppellantArunachellam Chetti and ors.
RespondentPrabhayya Chetti and anr.
Cases ReferredSheorania v. Bharat Singh I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....be considered as no party mohini mohun das v. bungsi buddan saha das i.l.r. (1889) c. 580. want of signature or verification does not entail the rejection of the plaint under order vii rule 11 of the civil procedure code and such verification and signature can be supplied at any stage of the proceeding under order vi rule 17 and section 153 of the code. unless then it can be held that so far as the 1st plaintiff is concerned there is really no plaint, the respondents cannot succeed, for it is only in the view that the 1st plaintiff was not on the record as plaintiff that his addition now could be considered as the bringing of a new plaintiff and so attract to the case the provision of section 22 of the limitation act; and but for those provisions it is obvious that any amendment of the.....
Judgment:

1. We are unable to take the view taken by the District Judge.

2. The 1st plaintiff was wrongly described in the plaint as a minor but was described as a plaintiff and though he has not himself signed and verified the plaint he is not merely on' that account to be considered as no party Mohini Mohun Das v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das I.L.R. (1889) C. 580. Want of signature or verification does not entail the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and such verification and signature can be supplied at any stage of the proceeding under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 153 of the Code. Unless then it can be held that so far as the 1st plaintiff is concerned there is really no plaint, the respondents cannot succeed, for it is only in the view that the 1st plaintiff was not on the record as plaintiff that his addition now could be considered as the bringing of a new plaintiff and so attract to the case the provision of Section 22 of the Limitation Act; and but for those provisions it is obvious that any amendment of the plaint that might be necessary would have to be made in this case.

3. To succeed we think the respondents ought to show that the 1st plaintiff did not consent to the suit in his name; that so far as he was concerned it was certainly unauthorized as was held to be the case in Sheorania v. Bharat Singh I.L.R. (1891) A. 90 and there is nothing to show this and on the other hand he has come forward stating that he is willing to proceed with the suit thus ratifying his mother's act, if he did not authorise it before.

4. There is no reason to suppose that his description as a minor was due to anything but a mistake, as he has said, and we find no ground for holding that his prosecution of the suit will be prosecution by a new plaintiff within the meaning of Section 22 of the Limitation Act.

5. We allow the appeal and remand the suit to the District Judge for disposal according to law.

6. The costs in this Court will be costs in the suit.


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