' ANWAR HUSSAIN, J.--- By way of this Appeal, the Appellants/ Defendants have assailed the Order dated 28.08.2014, dismissing their Review Application (C.M.A.1340/2013) and Order dated 09.10.2014, ordering the Suit to proceed ex parte against them, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No,270/2009 (Mirza Imtiaz Baig v. Pakistan Hockey Federation and Muhammad Asif Bajwa).
2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent filed Suit No,370/2009, for Declaration and Recovery of Amount and Damages against the Appellants, in this Court under its Original Civil Jurisdiction. The Appellants engaged Counsel, who on 28.05.2009, submitted his Vakalatnama and ultimately the Written Statement was filed on 25.09.2010. Learned Single Judge on 22.11.2010, adopted the Issues and vide Order, dated 15.11.2011, appointed the Commissioner for recording evidence in the matter.
3. The Respondent examined himself and was cross-examined by the Advocate for the Appellants.
Thereafter, Muhammad Asif Bajwa, the Appellant No,2, for self and on behalf of Appellant No,1, filed his Affidavit-in-Evidence, was partly cross examined and further cross was reserved for want of time. The learned Commissioner submitted his Report in Court for return of the Commission, as he had shifted his residence and practice to District Thatta, which was fixed for order on 28.10.2013, before the learned Single Judge, and at that time Mr. Hassan Sabir, Advocate for the Appellants pointed out that the. Appellant No,2, General Secretary of Appellant No,1, has resigned and he was to file fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of the Appellant No,1, which was opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondents on the ground that Mr. Hassan Sabir, Advocate, has never filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Appellant No,1, as the Vakalatnama available on record was of the Appellant No,2 only and the joint Written Statement filed on behalf of the Appellants was not signed by them, but was signed by Mr. Hassan Sabir, Advocate, which was not in terms of Order VI, Rules 14 and 15, C.P.C., as it is not verified on oath by the Appellants. The Learned Single Judge vide Order dated 28.10.2013, allowed the request of the Commissioner and further ordered that since the Appellants have not filed the Written Statement, let the matter be fixed for ex parte order against them on 04.11.2013. Thereafter, M/s. Ikram Ahmed Ansari and Ayaz Ahmed Ansari, Advocates, filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the Appellants Nos.1 and 2, and sought time and then filed an Application under sections 114 and 151, C.P.C. (C.M.A. No,13240/2013), thereby submitted and prayed that Order dated 28.10.2013 be reviewed and allow the Appellants to sign and verify their Written Statement already filed in the matter. On notice thereon, the Respondent did not file any Counter Affidavit or Objections for the same and after hearing the arguments, learned Single Judge dismissed said Application vide impugned Order dated 28.08.2014.
4. Thereafter, again vide Order dated 09.10.2014, learned Single Judge ordered that the Suit to proceed ex parte against the Appellants Nos.1 and 2, and directed the Office to place the case in Court for final disposal and as such the Appellants have impugned aforesaid two orders by way of this Appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that the impugned orders are not legal and proper and are violative of principles of natural justice, as the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that non-signing of Written Statement by the Appellants was mere omission and was curable even at appellate stage and has erred in law in holding that none of the Appellants have filed Written Statement and matter be fixed ex parte against them. Learned Counsel further argued that learned Single Judge has also wrongly rejected the Appellant's Application for allowing them to sign the Written Statement, as the Respondent did not file any objection over the same, also has failed to consider that the evidence was proceeded wherein the Respondent was cross-examined by the Appellants' Counsel and the Appellants had filed Affidavit-inEvidence and in cross-examination the Appellants have owned the Written Statement. Learned Counsel has relied upon 1987 SCMR 1365, 1992 SCMR 1009, 1989 CLC 1883, 1996 CLC 1064, 1993 MLD 321, 1981 SCMR 687, PLD 1983 Kar. 99, PLD 1990 SC (AJ&K) 13 and PLD 1961 Kar. (W.P) 486 (DB).
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent while supporting the Impugned Orders argued that the Appellants have neither signed nor verified the Written Statement, which has only been filed by the Advocate on behalf of the Appellants, so the same was not in terms of Order VI Rules 14 and 15, C.P.C., and only the Appellant No,2 has signed the Vakalatnama and as such the Written Statement on behalf of Appellant No,1 as also not legal so there was no Written Statement in the matter and the learned Single Judge has rightly ordered that the Appellants have not filed any Written Statement and the matter be fixed for ex parte order against them. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon PLD 1980 Karachi 477 and PLD 1962 (W.P) (Lahore) 830.
7. Heard arguments of the Learned Counsel gone through the Impugned Orders, and record available in the matter.
8. The main controversy in the matter is this what would be effect of filing of Written Statement under the signature of the Advocate only, and in the mid of cross-examination to the Appellants, learned Single Judge has rightly ordered that none of the Appellants have filed Written Statement and the matter to be fixed for ex parte Order against them.
9. Since it is a settled law that omission to or mistake to sign the pleadings (Plaint or Written Statement) is merely an irregularity and can be cured/rectified subsequently at any stage and even otherwise the Appellants have also duly engaged another Advocate and filed an Application to allow the Appellants to sign and verify their Written Statement, already on record, which Application has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by the Impugned Order dated 28.08.2014.
10. The apex Court in the case of Muhammad Anwar Khan and others v. Choudhry Riaz Ahmed and others reported in PLD 2002 SC 491, has ruled that striking of the defence for non-signing of the Written Statement is not proper and the duty of the Court is to do substantial justice and party not to suffer simply on technical grounds and Court would have passed order asking such party to sign the Written Statement, when they are represented by the Lawyer. In this matter, the Appellants'
Counsel has filed Written Statement under his signature, he cross-examined the Respondent, the Appellants' filed their joint Affidavit-in-Evidence through their former Advocate whereupon the Respondents partly cross-examined the Appellants, who in cross-examination has owned the Written Statement by way of following lines:- "I had authorized my lawyer to file Written Statement. I had given Vakalatnama on my behalf. It is correct that I have not signed any other Power of Attorney to my lawyer. The Written Statement, has competently been filed by my lawyer. I have gone through the Written Statement."
' Thereby the Appellants have not disowned the Written Statement rather have ratified the same, so the lack of signature on the Written Statement could not make the Written Statement redundant, for which reliance is placed in case of Muhammardullait Khan reported in 1987 CLC 1366 and Case of Ajaib Khan v. Allah Ditta, reported in 2002 YLR 2723, as such non-signing of the Written Statement by the Appellants is mere a procedural irregularity and can be rectified by the Appellants by signing and verifying the Written Statement already submitted in the matter on their behalf and such exercise can be made at any stage even at appellate stage also for which reliance is placed on the case of MIs. Aziz Floor Mills v. I.D.B.P., reported in 1990 CLC 1473 (DB), case of Muhammad Sarwar alias Feroz Ali v. Abdul Ghani, reported in 1980 CLC 946 (D B)and case of Rajabali v. Gujrat Bus Service, reported in PLD 1961 (W.P.) Karachi 486 (DB). Even otherwise such opportunity was not given to the Appellants by the learned Single Judge and that too when the matter was adjourned for further cross-examination to the Appellants before the Commissioner, who made a reference to the Court for the return of the Commission showing his inability to proceed further, learned Single Judge treated that there is no Written Statement on behalf of the Appellants, that too without giving opportunity to the Appellants to rectify the same, which is also not proper rather violative of the principles of natural justice for which reference is made to the case of Toor Gul v. Mumtaz Begum reported in PLD 1972 SC 09.
11. In the case of Suneri Bank Limited v. Classic Denim Mills (Pvt.) Limited, reported in 2011 CLD 408, one of us (Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J.), has held: " ..... Signing, verification and drafting of plaint in a particular manner were matter of mere procedure, thus relevant provisions could not be strictly construed. Rules regarding verification and signature of plaint being matter relating to procedure, were to be liberally construed. Such presentation or signing could not make plaint a nullity. Rules and regulations are only meant to streamline the procedure and administer the course of justice, but not to thwart the same. Duly of the Court to do substantial justice. Prime object behind all legal formalities is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice. Mere technicality, unless offering insurmountable hurdle should not be allowed to defeat end of justice. The nutshell of this discussion is that the non signing of the plaint is an irregularity that can be cured at any stage and the Plaintiff cannot be non-suited on this ground alone."
12. Moreover, the Respondent has not filed any Counter-Affidavit or objection to the Appellants'
Application for allowing them to sign and verify the Written Statement; as such the said Application ought to have been allowed by the Learned Single Judge.
13. Since the basic Order dated 28.10.2013, is against the settled law that non-signing of the pleadings is mere irregularity and can be rectified subsequently and that decision of the cases to be on merits instead of non-suiting the litigants for technical reason, including the limitation, for which reliance is placed on the case of ManaRing Director S.S,G.C. v. Ghulam Abbas, reported in PLD 2003 SC 724, so the rejection of the Appellants' Application to allow them to sign Written Statement is not proper and even otherwise when the Appellants' Written Statement in the matter was filed the Deputy Registrar (O.S.) of this Court, has not raised any objection and Learned Single Judge omitted to consider such aspects of law and facts, and the Apex Court in PLD 2013 SC 829, on the basis of principle that "an act of Court shall not prejudice no man", has held: " ... As nobody should suffer due to any act, omission or mistake of the Court. Similarly nobody should take undue advantage or benefit of any act, omission, mistake or legal error committed by the Court and to avoid adverse effect of such judgment, powers are to be exercised by the Court in the manner to save it from becoming an abuse of the process of law.
' So we are of the considered opinion that rejection of the Appellants' Review Application on the ground of delay of about 8 days, was to be ignored/condoned in view of the above observation and reasons. Even otherwise an important aspect of the case cannot be ignored that though Review 'Application was dismissed on 28.8.2014, but it is a matter of record that the order under review was passed with the directions to the Office to fix the case for ex-parte order, which was in fact passed on 9.10.2014 (date of ex parte order) and not on 28.10.2013 or 28.8.2014 therefore, in our view, the question of limitation is immaterial for setting aside the ex-parte order.
14. The Vakalatnama in the Suit has been signed by the Appellant No,2, who was the Secretary of the Appellant No,1, at that time, so the same is on behalf of the Appellant No,1 also and their Advocate has filed Written Statement on behalf of the Appellants in the matter, which has not been disowned by the Appellants in cross-examination and even otherwise fresh Vakalatnama duly signed by the Appellants in favour of M/s. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, and Ayaz Ansari Advocates, was filed and the same Advocates have filed this Appeal, as such contentions of the Respondents are technical and it is settled law that the technicalities are to be brushed aside for the administration of justice and law favours decision of case on merits rather on technical knock outs. In view of the above, case laws referred to by the Respondent's Counsel are not distinguishable from the facts of case, as such are not of any help to the Respondents in the matter.
15. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Appeal is allowed, thereby the Impugned Orders are set- aside and the Appellants are directed to sign and verify the Written Statement already on record within a week so that the matter may proceed by the learned Judge (0.S.) from the stage where it was pending prior to passing of ex parte order. Pending Application also stands disposed of.