R.S. Pathak, C.J.
1. This is a plaintiff s revision petition directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Kalpa rejecting a plaint.
2. The plaintiff filed an amended plaint on July 25, 1975, but It was not signed and verified by the plaintiff himself or by his Mukhtiar. It was signed by the plaintiff's pleader. Because neither the plaintiff nor his Mukhtiar had signed the amended plaint, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge has rejected the plaint. It seems to me that the requirement in Rules 14 and 15 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure that a plaint should be signed by the party and should be verified by him are purely matters of procedure, and it is always open to such party to make good the deficiency at a later stage. I am fortified in this view by All India Reporter Ltd. Bombay v. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar, AIR 1961 Bom 292. The proper course for the learned Senior Subordinate .Judge was to have given an opportunity to the plaintiff or his Mukhtiar to sign and verify the plaint. It would have been a different matter if such opportunity being afforded the plaintiff or his Mukhtiar did not avail of it.
3. Shri R.K. Sharma, appearing for the defendant-respondents, states that the parties have entered into a compromise. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner is unable to affirm whether that is so. In the absence of any material evidencing a compromise between the parties, this revision petition must be disposed of on its merits.
4. The revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Kalpa is set aside. There is no order as to costs.