MOHAMMAD ISLAM Vs. DELHI WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the order of Shri M.L. Jain, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated February, 22, 1965. By the said order the trial Court disposed of only issue No. 2 which was as under :-

(2.) I am unabie to agree with Mr. Kapur's contention that suit instituted without a proper authority of a purported plaintiff cannot be allowed to be amended after the Court had decided the question of the agent's authority. No doubt an action commenced at the instance of some one not properly authorised cannot be termed as a suit properly constituted. In that limited sense it may even be termed as a nullity but on general principle of law relating to principal and agent it should be open to the purported plaintiff to rectify the defect by signing the plaint and adopting the proceedings. On that being done the defect in the proceedings as originally constituted would, in my view, stand cured, As a matter of fact, Mr. Kapur also does not dispute that the plaintiff could sign the plaint and adopt the procedings before the impugned order was passed. I am unable to see what difference does the passing of the order make. By such an order the Court merely decides whether the suit has been initiated or the plaint signed by a duly authorised person. That does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to allow time to the plaintiff to amend the plaint by appending the signatures of a properly authorised person. I see no objection to a composite order being made holding that the suit has been filed not by a properly authorised person and allowing the same to be amended. In Danish Mercantie Co. Ltd. and others V. Beaumount certain proceedings were initiated in the name of the company by a solicitor without verifying whether he had proper authority to do so. It was observed by Jenkins L. J. -

(3.) Mr. Kapur also refers to Notified Area Commiltte, Okara v. Kidar Nath' and submits that an illegal act cannot be legalised subsequently and ratification is of no avail in case where the original act is void ab inito. That judgment is of no avail to him because it turns on the provisions of the Punjab Muricipal Act. In that case the Court held that the Municipal committee had no power to delegate its functions of deciding whether a suit should be instituted or not. It was held in these circumstances that an action brought in disregard of the provisions of the Municipal Act could not beratified. In case of this type however the matter has to belooked at purely from the view-point of principal and agent. Moreover, as I have said earlier Mr. Kapur does not depute that the plaint could be signed before the impugned, order was passed. Regarding the contention of Mr. Kapur that the ratification will not have the effect of saving the limitation it is not necessary for me to decided by the trial Court after a proper plea is raised and facts determined.