MOHD. ISLAM Vs. DELHI WAKF BOARD AND ANR.

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 fortieth trial Court disposed of only issue No. 2 which was as under:

(2.) The trial Court held that Mir Mushtaq Ahmad, who signed and verified the plaint and filed the suit on behalf of Delhi Wakf Board, Plaintiff, was not duly constituted Secretary of the Board and, therefore, the plaint was not signed and filed by a properly authorised person. The trial Court, however, granted the request made on behalf of the Plaintiff that they be permitted to get it signed by a competent person. The grievance of the Petitioner Is against the last part of the order allowing the Plaintiff to get the plaint signed by a duly authorised person. Mr. Kapur, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has drawn my attention to Sec. 9 of the Muslim Wakf Act, 1954, and submits that the said Board is a body corporate and, therefore, could institute the plaint only through a duly authorised person. He, however, does not dispute that, in view of Sec. 22 of the Act, the Board could delegate the powers of instituting the suit, or signing and verifying the plaint. His contention, in short, is that the plaint not having been instituted or signed by a duly authorised person it could be permitted to be signed by a competent person only before the passing of the impugned order by the trial Court holding that Mir MuShtaq Ahmad was not competent to institute the suit or sign the plaint. He submits that a principal could not ratify an act of an agent in such matters after the Court had decided that the purported agent had no authority to institute the suit or sign the plaint. He, in the alternative, submits that even if the Court was justified in granting the request, the limitation would Start from the day the plaint is signed by a duly authorised agent. He relies for this proposition on Punjab Zamindara Bank Ltd. Lyallpur v/s. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors., A.I.R. 1936 Lah. 321. He also refers to Kirpal Chand v/s. The Traders Bank Ltd., A.I.R. 1954 J&K. 45, and points out that in that case the Court allowed the plaint to be amended and signed by a properly authorised person but that was done during the pendency of the suit and not after the Court had decided the issue as in this. case. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order is correct in law and relies on Goswami Sri Raman Lalji v/s. Goswami Sri Gokul Nathji 39 Ind. Cas. 462. Calico Printers Association v/s. Karim and Bros. : A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 566, All -India Reporters Ltd. v/s. Ramchandra : A.I.R. 1961 Bom. 292, Bundi Portland Cement Ltd. v/s. A.H. Essaji : A.I.R. 1936 Bom. 418 and W. Johnston v/s. Rameshwar Singh 104 Ind. Cas. 747. In All India Reporters case the suit was filed on behalf of two Plaintiffs, namely, (1) All Indian Reporter Limited, Bombay, and (2) Shri V.V. Chitaley. On an objection being taken by the Defendant on the ground that the plaint was not properly signed or verified, the trial Court upheld the objection but ordered that the plaint should be properly signed and verified by someone authorised on behalf of All -India Reporter Limited. The matter was taken to the High Court in revision and the said order of the trial Court was challenged but the revision was dismissed on the ground that no question of jurisdiction was involved. It was also held that if a plaint was not properly signed or verified, it was open to the Court at any subsequent stage either on its own initiative or upon an objection by the Defendant to require the Plaintiff to sign and verify the plaint and merely because the Court directed the Plaintiff to sign the plaint subsequently, the original plaint, which was not properly signed, did not cease to be a suit.

(3.) I am unable to agree with Mr. Kapur's contention that, a 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 someone 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 hot dispute that the Plaintiff could sign the plaint and adopt the proceedings 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 not been field by a properly authorised person and allowing the same to be amended. In Danish Mercantile Company Ltd. arid Ors. v/s. Beaumount and Anr., (1951) I All. E.R. 925, 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. - -