' This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 1041 and 1042 of 1979 as they arise out of the same proceedings.
2. On 20-3-1975, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for the possession of land as described in the plaint by way of exercise of superior right of preemption. Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Hussain defendants-vendees were minors but in the plaint they were shown as such. The respondent No. 1, on the discovery of this fact, made an application for permission to sue the aforesaid defendants through guardian ad litem. The necessary permission was made and Ghulam Hussain were ordered to be represented through guardian ad litem appointed by the Court. On 4-11-1978 defendants filed an application for amendment to raise the plea of limitation on account of the fact that the suit has filed, originally, did not show Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Hussain as minors it was further contended that when permission had been granted to sue through guardian ad litem, the suit had become barred by time and as such defendants were entitled to raise this plea in the written statement. This application of the petitioners was rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Multan vide his order dated 14-7-1979 holding that in these circumstances the question of limitation would not arise. This order is the subject-matter of Civil Revision No, 1041 of 1979.
3. Another application was made by the petitioners for the amendment in the written statement on 11-1-1979 for adding in paragraph 4-A of the written statement that the respondent No. 1 had not filed the suit and the plaint does not bear his signatures. This application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan on 14-7-1979. This order is the subject-matter of Civil Revision No, 1042 of 1979.
"Civil Revision No, 1041 of 1979"
4. The learned trial Court in the impugned order dated 14-7-1979 has taken absolutely correct view of law. A suit may be filed and the plaintiff may not be aware that the defendant or some of the defendants are minors. It is for this reason that Order XXXII, rule 3, C. P. C. Enjoins on the Court to appoint a proper person to be guardian for the suit in which defendant is a minor and this depends upon the satisfaction of the Court as regards the fact of the minority of the defendant. Sub-rule (2) of rule 3 provides that an order for the appointment of guardian for the suit of such a defendant may be obtained upon application in the name and on behalf of the minor or by the plaintiff. The remaining sub-rules provide procedure for the appointment of guardian. Sub-rule (4) as amended by the Lahore High Court provides that the Court may at any time after institution of the suit, call upon the plaintiff to furnish a list of minors and other persons with their addresses and in case the plaintiff does not comply with the directions of the Court, the Court may reject the plaint. It is nowhere provided under Order XXXII, rule 3 that in case the defendant is, in fact, a minor and this fact has not been disclosed in the plaint, the plaint would be liable to be rejected or the suit dismissed. The appointment of a guardian ad litem is made by the Court either when the plaint reveals the defendant's minority or the defendant pleads minority, where minority is disputed the Court had ascertained it as a question of fact. The appointment of guardian ad litem does not amount to adding such a defendant and as such the provisions of Order I, rule 10 are not applicable. According to sub-rule (5) of rule 10, the proceedings as against the person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons subject to the law of limitation. The provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 10 of Order I may be reproduced below :- "(5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, section 22, the proceedings as against any person added a defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons."
' The law of limitation to the newly-added party is governed under section 22 of the Limitation Act and is to the following effect : "22.-(l) Where, after the institution of suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party ;
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to a case where a party is added or substituted owing to an assignment or devolution of any interest during the pendency of suit or where a plaintiff is made a defendant or a defendant is made a plaintiff."
' A plain reading of the two provisions above would show that section 22 of the Limitation Act is applicable only where any person is added as defendant. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court All Muhammad etc. v. Muhammad Hussain, etc. (1) Baghdadul Jadid in supply of his contention that where a defendant is shown as minor, in the first instance, and the guardian ad litem is appointed after the expiry of limitation the suit against the minor shall be deemed to be barred by time.
5. I have gone through the judgment and with utmost respect I am not in a position to subscribe the view taken in this judgment. The counsel appearing in this case does not seem to have assisted the Court properly. This judgment is based on the assumption that under Order I, rule 10(5), C. P. C. a suit against minor without guardian ad litem could not be instituted. Similarly it is mentioned in this judgment that under Order XXXII, rule 5, C. P. C. If a minor is not represented by a next friend or guardian he could be discharged from the suit. Rule 5 of Order XXXII relates to interlocutory orders and provides that every application on behalf of a minor connected {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1980 CLC 2214 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' with the list is to be made through a next friend or the guardian. The rule is based on the principle that unless the minor is properly represented the orders passed upon such application are not binding. Sub-rule (2) provides that the Court may under sub-rule (2) discharge such an order in its discretion or it may allow the proceedings if they are in the interest of the minor. There is nothing in the rule which can be considered as discharge of the minor from the proceedings. In Ali Muhammad's case an application has been made for amendment for permission to sue the defendants through guardian ad !Item at a time when the suit had become barred by time. This application was dismissed relying upon the provisions of Order I, rule 10(5) and Order XXXII, rule 5(2), C. P. C. Quoted above. The application for amendment had been disallowed by the trial Court and the revision petition was also dismissed with the following observations : "At the stage when the application was made, the period of limitation of the suit had expired and if at that stage the civil Court bad allowed the petitioner to amend his plaint so as to sue the aforementioned two minors through their guardian ad litem, the suit became time barred. At the same time due to the failure on the part of the petitioner for not suing the aforementioned two minors through their guardians at the time of the institution of the suit meant that a benefit had accrued in favour of the minors of which they could not be deprived of. Under Order I, rule 10(5) a suit against a minor without guardian ad litem could not be instituted. Thus, a suit would be considered to have been instituted only on that date when a minor is sued through his guardian. In the present case the sale took place on the 11th of January, 1974. After the institution of the suit, for the first time when the petitioner applied for amendment of the plaint and prayed for appointment of a guardian ad litem for the aforementioned two minors, the date was the 30th of April, 1975. Thus, when the said application was submitted the suit against the minors had become time barred.
Under Order XXXII, rule 5(2), C. P. C. If a minor is not represented by a next friend or guardian, he would be discharged from a suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue that in a suit if an application was made under Order XXXII, rule 5, C. P. C. For the addition of a guardian ad litem for the minors then it would not effect limitation. He placed reliance on Younas Bhuiyan (Minor) and another v. Juban Chandra Datta and others PLD 1965 Dacca 323. I am afraid this ruling is of no help to learned counsel for it concerns with appeals where delay can be condoned.
But we are concerned here with a suit for possession by pre-emption which by itself is a predatory and artificial right. The minors in this case are vendees and a valuable right had accrued in their favour. If the amendment was allowed and the petitioner was permitted at a stage when ordinarily the suit against the minors had become time barred, it would mean that they would be deprived of the valuable right which had accrued in their favour. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the Senior Civil Judge, Babawalnagar, in this case passed the correct order when he rejected the application of the petitioner. This civil revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
I could not find anything in the relevant provisions of law to support the above conclusion. The question of limitation had not arisen in the circumstances of the case on account of permission to sue the defendant through guardian ad litem. This revision has no force and is hereby dismissed.
"Civil Revision No, 1042 of 1979"
6. The amendment prayed for in the application dated 11-2-1979, as already stated above, has also been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. The respondent No. 1 had owned the filing of the suit and had admitted his signatures on the plaint. A party cannot be permitted to raise objection as to the signatures on the pleadings so long as the party, present in Court, admits his signatures. Order VI, rule 14, C. P. C. Provides that every pleading shall on signed by the party and his pleader if any, provided that where a party pleading is by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleadings, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. The object of requiring every pleading to be signed by the party is to prevent as far as possible dispute as to whether the suit was instituted with the plaintiff's knowledge or authority and reliance may be placed on Secretary of State for India v. Dinshaw Nawasji and another (1). In this case the respondent No. 1 has accepted his signatures. Even an irregularity in the signatures or verification of a plaint is a mere defect of procedure and D does not effect the jurisdiction of the Court and the remedy is by way of amendment of the plaint. This objection even otherwise had been taken at a very late stage and could not be permitted to be taken at a later stage. The learned trial Court had exercised its discretion on sound principles. No ground has been made for interference. This revision has no force and is hereby dismissed.
7. In both the revisions there will be no order as to costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) AIR 1925 Sind 275 {{FOOT NOTE}}