M. HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J.--The present appeal has been referred against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.1989 passed by the VIIth Sr. Civil / Judge, Karachi South, whereby the suit filed by the appellant against the Respondents has been dismissed.
The facts are that the appellant filed suit against the Respondents for recovery of Rs.91,280/- for loss of consignment imported by the petitioner from China to be delivered to the appellant at Lahore via Karachi. The consignment was insured with Respondent No.1 and was taken from Karachi to Lahore by Respondent No.2, who are the Carriers. While the consignment was at the godown of the Carriers, the fire broke out resulting in destruction of the entire consignment. The appellant took the necessary steps to avail the benefit of the insurance policy and called upon Respondent No.1 to pay the claim and so also served notice on Respondent No.2 for the same purpose.
2. The Respondent failed to pay the claim of the appellant and consequently the suit has filed.
Respondent No.1 was proceeded ex-parte but Respondent No.2 contested the suit. During the proceedings the appellant did not press the suit against Respondent No.2 and even before this Court, it is stated that the claim is not pressed against Respondent No.2. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit for the reason that the plaint was presented before the court on 12.5.1986 whereas the person who had signed and verified the plaint as attorney, was authorized to do so by way of General Power of Attorney executed on 20.5.1986. Thus the suit having been filed by an unauthorized person was not maintainable. The other reason that was given, for dismissal of the suit was to the effect that the documents produced in evidence by the said attorney could not be accepted as the author thereof was not examined.
The documents produced in the evidence consist of insurance papers, the correspondence and survey report.
I have heard the learned Counsel of the appellant in support of the appeal. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 has been called absent. The advocate of Respondent No.2 did not contest the appeal as the suit against Respondent No.2 has not been pressed.
It is a requirement of Order VII, Rule 14 CPC that every pleading is to be signed by the party and his pleader or in case the party is unable to sign the pleading, it should be signed any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.
3. The aforesaid provision has been interpreted more than once by the superior courts. It has been laid down that non-signing of the plaint at the proper stage is mere irregularity which can be cured at subsequent stage. Referened may be made to the case of Ismail and another Vs. Mst. Razia Begum & 3 others (1981- SCMR 687) It is also settled law that it is not necessary that a separate application should be filed for signing the plaint by authorised person and that the plaint can be allowed to be signed even at appellate stage. In the case of Rajabali Vs. Messrs Gujrat Bus Service, Karachi (PLD-1961 (W.P) Kar. 486) it is held that there is no authority to support the contention that Order VII, Rule 14, contemplates a formal application by a party who is unable to sign the pleadings.
But even if that were the case, the omission is of a minor nature and the court can get the plaint signed by the appellant in addition to the signature of the legal attorney of the party. The objection was treated as purely of technical nature having no bearing on the merits of the case and .Was over-ruled. In the case of Messrs Nabi Bakhsh & Sons Vs. Pakistan (PLD-1969-Kar. 566), the- objections filed under section 14 of the Arbitration Act were not signed by the Respondent. It was held that the failure to sign the objections in the circumstances was a mere irregularity and the Respondent was allowed to signed the same at the Letters Patent appeal stage. Similar view was expressed in the case of Ali Mohammad and two others Vs. Gulfam and others (PLD-1983-Kar. 99).
In this reported case the plaint was signed by an unauthorised person but the said irregularity was cured before the final decision of the suit. It was observed that the plaint cannot be rejected on such ground.
4. Therefore, the dismissal of the suit on the said ground by the learned trial Judge was not warranted in law.
The other reason advanced by the learned trial Judge is also of no substance. The documents produced by the appellant were received in evidence and exhibited without any objection and were validly so produced and no exception can be taken to the said documents merely for the reason that the author of the said documents were not examined. Reference in this regard may be made to the following cases:-
(a) Malik Din and Another Vs. Muhammad Aslam (PLD-1969-SC 136)
(b) Faizyab Khan Vs. Syed Aziz Ali Chishti (1982-SCM R 358)
I, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree and remand the case to th. Learned trial Judge who will allow the appellant to get the plaint signed and verified by any person authorised by it. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.