' The orders of learned Rent Controller, rejecting objection as to the defective signing of ejectment petition, granting permission for its signing by the landlord and refusal to frame an issue on the point have been challenged in this writ petition.
2. A petition for ejectment was filed by respondent No,1, seeking eviction of the petitioner, from House No,72-3/C-1, Township Scheme, Lahore, on the ground of damage and personal use which petition was signed by Muhammad Yaqub, brother of respondent No,1. The petitioner raised objection, as to the authority of Muhammad Yaqub to sign the ejectment application and also applied for framing of an additional issue, as to the maintainability of the ejectment petition on the ground of signing of petition by an incompetent person. The learned Rent Controller, allowed signing of the petition by respondent No,1, confirmed his identity, maintained, that the petition was filed by rightful person and rejected the application for framing of additional issue, for the reason that the petition has been signed in his presence by the rightful person and, therefore, the objection stood removed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued, that the ejectment petition was signed by an incompetent person and that the power of attorney, given in favour of Muhammad Yaqub was later in time than the filing of ejectment petition. He submitted, that permission to allow resigning of the petition by Muhammad Azam Sattar, respondent, was not warranted and instead, either the petition should have been dismissed or an additional issue should have been framed.
4. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are not well-founded. The non- signing of pleading, by an authorised person, is a mere defect of procedure, which neither affects the jurisdiction of the Court nor vitiates the pleadings. Any such procedural error, can be allowed to be corrected, at any stage of proceedings. In Shafiq Metal Works and 5 others v. The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd., Gujranwala (PLD 1973 Note 33 at page 41, it was held, that there is no provision in the C.P.C., under which, a plaint not signed by a competent person, can be deemed to be void or nullity or that it will simply be an irregularity, which does not vitiate the pleadings. It was further observed, that if a final decree is passed in a case where defective pleadings were filed and later corrected, a decree cannot be held to be a nullity.
5. In Ismail and another v. Mst. Razia Begum and 3 others (1981 SCMR 687), it was held that the non- signing of the plaint was mere irregularity and that permission to sign, for rectification of irregularity, would not cause any prejudice nor can be this objected to. In this case, the plaint was not signed and verified and for objection, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the case was remanded for getting the plaint signed and verified. The order was unsuccessfully challenged in the High Court and was subsequently assailed before the hon'ble Supreme Court, when it was observed that the non-signing of the plaint at a proper stage was mere irregularity and, therefore, the Court was justified in directing rectification of irregularity. The objection was held to be too technical which was not allowed, to do substantial justice between the parties and plaint was allowed to be signed after one year.
6. In Haji Muhammad Rafiq v. Shahenshah Jehan Begum (PLD 1987 Karachi 180), it was observed that where a plaint in a rent case was not properly signed or verified or was entered in the register of the rent cases, the same would not cease to be a plaint. It was further observed, that defects in regard to signing of plaint or eviction application were technical irregularities relating to the procedure and for this reason, eviction application could not fail.
7. In Abdul Ghani v. Muhammad Shafi (1990 CLC 1472) it was held, that irregularity in signature or verification was a mere defect in procedure which could be rectified at any stage of proceedings.
8. In Ghulam Bahauddin Qureshi v. Mrs. Hawa Bai (PLD 1979 Karachi 597), it was held, that Orders III, IV and VI of C.P.C., did not apply to the proceedings under the Rent Laws, eviction application could not be allowed to fail merely for the reasons that the landlord had inadvertently failed to sign it or because of the person signing such application being not landlord's attorney within the meaning of Order III of C.P.C.
9. In Muhammad Din v. Razia Bibi (1992 MLD (Lahore) 1144), it was held that omission of a plaintiff to sign the plaint was not material and that the person having filed the suit, if owns that plaint and signs the same, such omission would stand rectified. In view of this rule, no interference was made in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
10. From the rule, laid in the above-noted case, it is evident, that the objection as to the non-signing of the plaint by the petitioner/plaintiff or objection as to the authority of the person signing the plaint, are mere procedural irregularities, which do not, vitiate the pleadings nor effect the jurisdiction of the Court. The plaint cannot be rejected nor a suit can be dismissed, on account of such a technical objection and for doing substantial justice, the procedural irregularities should be allowed to be rectified by permitting the parties to sign the pleadings. Likewise, technical and penal provisions of C.P.C., are not strictly made available to the proceedings under Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In the present case, the respondent appeared in the Court, admitted the filing of the petition by him and signed the same, in the presence of the learned Rent Controller.
The irregularity, if any, thus, stood cured and rectified and there was no need to frame any additional issue. The learned Rent Controller, did not commit any jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity, in permitting, signing of petition by respondent and removing the objection raised in this regard. This being so, the order rejecting application for framing of additional issue, did not suffer from any legal infirmity. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. Law favours adjudication on merits. It appears, that the petitioner, has been making deliberate efforts to delay proceedings, by raising technical objections, one after the other. Instead of realizing, that the procedural irregularity stood rectified, he did not feel contended and filed the present writ petition with a view, to make an attempt further delaying the proceedings in the case before the Rent Controller. Such like tactics, of tenants, are never approved. No ground having been made out for interference, this writ petition is found to be without merit which is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, directed, that the learned Rent Controller shall accelerate the hearing of case and decide the main ejectment petition, within three months, with intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court.