ORDER Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-12-1986 passed by the Civil Judge-1, Gorakhpur in suit No. 64 of 1985 Mathura Prasad v. Smt. Rati Devi and Ors. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 5-12-1986 the Civil Judge-1, Gorakhpur has decided issue No. 8 against the defendant revisionist.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that initially the suit was filed in the Court of Munsif. The valuation of the suit was excessive, hence the plaint was taken back for filing the same before the Civil Judge, At the time of filing of the suit defendant Mathura Prasad was aged about 19 years and during the pendency of the suit he has attained the majority. In this regard an amendment application was moved on 31st March, 1980. An objection was raised that after attaining the majority the plaint should not be signed by his guardian while presenting the plaint before the Court of Civil Judge. It is alleged that since the defendant has not signed the plaint the suit has become illegal.
4. The findings of the trial Court are assailed on the ground that the trial Court has acted illegally in deciding issue No. 8 in favour of the plaintiff and has exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity by holding that lack of proper verification and signing of pleading is merely a mistake and can be subsequently rectified.
5. It has been submitted by the respondents that the decision on issue No. 8 does not come within the ambit of expression 'any case which has been decided' and as such, the revision is not maintainable against the order deciding an issue.
6. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed by the defendant Mathura Prasad, the minor, and it was signed by his guardian and the same was maintainable and was not defective when it was filed at the relevant time.
7. In the impugned order the Civil Judge has held that after attaining the majority defendant Mathura Prasad has committed irregularity by not signing the plaint and this irregularity can be rectified in law.
8. In Kanhaiya Lal v. Panchayat Shahara, 1994 AWR 217, it was held that the act of "defective presentation did not amount to any illegality and that it was a mere irregularity. It was held that in such circumstances opportunity should be offered to the applicant to have filed a Vakalatnama to remove the defect In presentation of the appeal.
9. In State v. Raja Singh, 1972 All LJ 9 (Revenue side) it has been held that :
"Under Order III, Rule 4, C.P.C. no pleader can act for any person unless he is appointed for the purpose by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized to make such appointment. This Rule requires a Vakalatnama and for Government pleader Order XXVII, Rule 9 prescribes an alternative in the shape of a memo of appearance signed by him.
Where the D.G.C. filed an appeal on behalf of the State Government but did not file his Vakalatnama or a memo of appearance, such defective presentation does not amount to any illegality. The Court should afford an opportunity to file a memo of appearance as soon as it becomes convinced of the defect."
10. In AIR 1966 SC 1119 Shastri Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya it has been held that (At P. 1124, Para 13):
"In this case, the Vakalatnama had evidently been signed by respondent. No. 1 in favour of the Government Pleader in time; and so, the High Court was plainly right in allowing the Government Pleader to sign the memo of appeal and the Vakalatnama in order to remove the irregularity committed in the presentation of the appeal. We do not think that Mr. Desai is justified in contending that the High Court was in error in over-ruling the objection raised by the appellants before it that the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 was incompetent."
11. It is against this order dated 6-12-86 the present revision has been filed by which the Court below has held that if the appeal has been filed without Vakalatnama it is only a mistake, which can be rectified and has granted 7 days' time to the plaintiff-opposite party Mathura Prasad to remove the aforesaid irregularity.
12. In my opinion, the Court below has committed no irregularity. The Court should not decide the cases on technicalities but decide the case on merits and do substantial justice. I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in Re, AIR 1956 SC 140, Pratap Singh v. Shri Krishna Gupta.
13. In view of the above position of law this revision has no force and it has been filed on hyper-technicality and requires no interference by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the issue decided neither affects the jurisdiction of the Court below nor the Court below has committed any material irregularity.
14. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.
15. Since the proceedings in O.S. No. 64 of 1985 are stayed since 1987, it is directed that the Court below may decide the suit expeditiously preferably within 6 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
16. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for restart of the hearing without any further delay.