B RAJA RAJESWARA MUTHU RAMALINGA SETHUPATHY AVERGAL THROUGH HIS AUTHORISED AGENT DEWAN RAJA M DINAKAR BAHADUR Vs. SHUNMUGA NADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING regard to the definition of the word signed in Section 2, Clause 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, and to the fact that under R. 4 (11) of the Civil Rules of Practice, the same definition has to be applied in the case of affidavits and vakalats, we think that the use of a stamp bearing the name of the party is sufficient even in cases where he is able to sign. Even under the old Civil P. C. of 1877 it was held in The Maharaja of Benares V/s. Debi Dayal Notna (1881) ILR 3 A 575 that inability to sign was not necessary in order to enable a person to use a stamp. The definition of signed in the present Code is to the effect that except in cases of judgments or decrees signed includes stamped. There is nothing to show that any difference can be drawn between vakalats and affidavits and pleadings. We set aside the order of the District Munsif and direct him to receive and file the papers returned if they are otherwise in order.