MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit filed by the appellant for recovery, the trial Court non-suited him only on the ground that the plaint was not signed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee and that the resolution had not been produced authorising him to file the suit. In appeal the resolution was produced and duly proved showing that one Bohar Singh PW 3, who was posted as Executive Officer from 8.12.1998 to 31.8.2000 was authorised vide resolution No. 220 dated 28.9.1999 to file the suit on behalf of the Municipal Committee. Concededly, the plaint was not signed by Bohar Singh but was signed by the pleader.

(2.) The learned lower appellate Court also dismissed the appeal on the ground that the plain could not looked into as it was not signed by the competent officer.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that non-signing of the plaint by the Executive Officer was merely a procedural irregularity and should not have come in the way as he had otherwise succeeded in establishing his claim to recover the amount and had also succeeded in fixing the liability of the respondent. In support of his contention he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr.