UTTAMRAM VITHALDAS Vs. THAKORDAS PARSHOTTAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TOEPLAINTIFF sued to recover the balance due in Sambat 1973 from the defendant and the price of goods supplied in Sambats 1973 and 1974, and for a further amount of Rs. 35 odd. The plaint was first presented on the 23 October 1920 signed by Vithaldas, a servant of the plaintiff, while the Vakilpatra of the Vakil was also signed by Vithaldas. When these fasts came to the notice of the Judge on the 3 December 1920, he found that the plaint was not propetly signed and not properly presented by the plaintiff, and that the Pleader presenting the plaint was not duly authorised, and, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs. We think he was right in holding that the plaint was not duly presented and not duly signed, as the plaintiff made no effort to prove that Vithaldas was his recognised agent trading on his behalf while he was away from the jurisdiction. But we think that if the plaintiff had applied to be allowed to sign the plaint and present it on that day, he should have been allowed to do so. Then, of course, the question of limitation would arise. We have nothing to do at present with that. So that to that extent the Rule will be made absolute, the decree dismissing the suit will be set aside and the plaintiff will have an opportunity of having his suit considered as if it was filed on the 3 December 1920. The plaintiff must pay the costs up to date.