ARUNACHELLAM CHETTY Vs. PRABHAYYA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are unable to take the view taken by the District Judge.

(2.) The 1st plaintiff was wrongly described in the plaint as a minor but was described as a plaintiff and though he has not himself signed and verified the plaint, he is not merely on that account to be considered as, no party Mohini Mohun Das v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das 17 C. 580. Want of signature or verification does not entail the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, and such verification and signature can be supplied at any stage of the proceedings under Order VI, Rule 17 and Section 153 of the Code. Unless then it can be held that so far as the 1st plaintiff is concerned, there is really no plaint, the respondents cannot succeed, for it is only in the view that the 1st plaintiff was not on the record as plaintiff that his addition now could be considered as the bringing in of a new plaintiff, and so attract to the case the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act: and but for those provisions, it is obvious that any amendment of the plaint that might be necessary would have to be made in this case.

(3.) To succeed, we think the respondents ought to show that the 1st plaintiff did not consent to the suit in his name; that so far as he was concerned, it was certainly unauthorised as was held to be the case in Sheorania v. Bharat Singh 20 A. 90 and there is nothing to show this; and, on the other hand, he has come forward stating that he is willing to proceed with the suit thus ratifying his mother s act, if he did not authorize it before.