' Briefly stated the facts are that Mst. Sughra Haq plaintiff/respondent on 6-1-1983 entered into an agreement to purcahase with the defendnat Sh. Abdur Rehman, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 for a sum of Rs,90,000 in respect of the property described fully in the plaint.
She paid Rs,10,000 as earnest money and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid before or at the time of execution of the sale-deed up to 30-6-1983. It was stipulated that if the remaining amount is not paid, the amount paid as earnest money would stand forfeited. Subsequently, the time for execution of sale-deed was extended up to 31-8-1983 and she further paid Rs,15,000 through a cheque which was also got encasahed. As the defendant/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners failed to perform his part of contract and through sale-deed dated 8-9-1983 sold the suit property to defendant/petitioner No,3, so the plaintiff/respondent was constrained to file a suit for specific performance against the defendants/petitioners on 20-10-1983. After the death of Sh.
Abdur Rehman, his legal heirs were impleaded and as such amended plaint was filed on 20-5- 1989. The suit was resisted by the defendants/petitioners who filed their written statement on 17-12- 1983. The trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and after recording evidence of the parties, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 19-3-1990. The defendants/petitioners felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and filed an appeal which was dismissed on 14-6- 1994. Hence the instant Civil Revision.
2. During the pendency of Civil Revision, an application under Order 6. Rule 17, C.P.C. Has been moved by the petitioners for amendment of written statement as well as grounds of revision. The said application has been resisted by the respondent.
3. By this order, the said application is being disposed of.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent through her husband Ata-ul-Haq asserting him to be her general attorney on the basis of general power of attorney executed on 15-5-1957. He argued that as the agreement in question was not in existence on 15-5-1957, so the plaintiff/respondent could not authorize her husband to file the instant suit, as such very institution of suit is defective. He next urged that amended plaint was filed on 20-5-1989 under the signature of Mst. Sughra Haq but it will not make any difference, as suit by that time had been time-barred. He further canvassed that such grounds could not be taken either in the written statement or in the grounds of revision, that the amendment sought is not going to change the character of the suit revision, so the amendment be allowed, that such amendments have been granted even at revisional stage unless a new subject- matter is sought to be added and placed reliance inter alia upon Mst. Rahim Noor v. Mst. Salim Bibi and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 30), Ch. Abdul Rashid v. Ch. Muhammad Tufail and others (PLD 1992 SC 180) and Qadir Bakhsh and 10 others v. Kh. Nizam-ud-Din Khan and 4 others (1997 SCM R 1267).
6. Conversely, application for amendment has been vehemently resisted by learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. His contention is that omission in the signatures of the pleadings or signature by a person not authorised is merely a defect of procedure and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court and can be allowed to be corrected at any stage and placed reliance upon All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay with Branch Office at Nagpur and another v. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar (AIR 1961 Bombay 292), Malik Sajawal Khan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargohda and another (PLD 1968 Lahore 527), Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din and another v. Noor Dad and 4 others (PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) 42) and Ismail and another v. Mst. Razia Begum and 3 others (1981 SCM R 687).
7. The only point which requires determination is, if the proposed amendment can be granted or not.
8. Admittedly, the plaint was initially signed by Ata-ul-Haq, in his capacity as general attorney of Mst. Sughra Haq. It is also fact that later on, amended plaint was filed on 20-5-1989 which was duly signed by Mst. Sughra Haq. Now even if there had been any defect in the initial institution of plaint, it stood rectified by filing the amended plaint, which was duly signed by Mst. Sughra Haq. It is also fact that the instant pleas were neither raised during the pendency of the suit which continued for about 7 years nor during the pendency of appeal which continued pending for four years. Now the instant civil revision was filed on 16-8-1994 and the instant application has been moved on 22-9- 1998 after a period of four years of the institution of the instant civil revision.
9. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners has referred to certain authorities, a perusal of which reveals that these are not applicable to the facts in hand and in no way advance their stand.
Conversely, the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent apply to the facts in hand. The provisions contained in Order 6, Rules 14 and 15, C.P.C. With regard to signing and verification of plaint are mere matters of procedure and if plaint is not properly signed or verified but is admitted and entered in the register of suits, it does not cease to be a plaint and the suit cannot be said not to have been instituted merely because of the existence of mere defect or irregularities in the matter of signing and verification of the plaint. If defects in regard to the signature, verification or presentation of the plaint are cured on a day subsequent to the date of filing the suit, the date of institution of the plaint is not changed to the subsequent date. The date of institution of the suit or the date from which an amendment takes effect does not depend on the discretion of the Court. Of course, the Court has discretion to allow or not to allow an amendment of the pleadings or the resigning or re-verification of the plaint. Once the discretion is exercised, the amendment of the plaint relates back to the original date of the suit. In other words, the original date of institution of the suit is not affected by the amendments in the plaint or the fresh signature or verification of the plaint and in this respect reliance is placed upon AIR 1961 Bombay 292 (supra).
Again signing and verification of the plaint are mere matters of procedure and even if a plaint is not properly signed and verified, but it is admitted and entered in the register of suits, it does not cease to be a plaint, and the suit cannot be said not to have been instituted because of the defect or irregularity in the matter of signing and verification of the plaint. Reliance can be placed upon PLD 1968 Lahore 527 (supra). Again it is undying that the suit cannot be dismissed for absence of signatures of the plaintiff on the plaint. This, again, is considered a formal defect, rectifiable at any stage. The Court is fully empowered to call the plaintiff to sign the plaint to do away with the defect.
In the instant case, even the Court has not to call the plaintiff as the amended plaint filed on 20-5- 1989 has been duly signed by the plaintiff Mst. Sughra Haq. It is on this premises that it is permissible to hold that on signing the Vakalatanama, at subsequent stage, and removal of the defect, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date of presentation of the plaint and its registration in the office. I am fortified in this respect by PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K)
42. It is also fact that during the period of seven years when the litigation remained pending in the trial Court as well as during the period of four years when the litigation remained pending in the Appellate Court, the plaintiff/respondent has all along been prosecuting the suit with diligence. Non-signing of plaint by the plaintiff/respondent at proper stage in such circumstances is a mere irregularity and the objection raised is only technical, particularly when substantial justice has been done between the parties. Reliance is placed upon 1981 SCM R 687 (supra).
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petition moved under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. By the defendants/petitioners seeking the amendment in the written statement as well as grounds of revision is devoid of any force and is hereby dismissed.
Application and .