- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) Since the factual and legal controversy raised in both the writ petitions are similar, they are being decided by this common judgment by treating Civil Misc. Writ No. 3019 of 2001 as leading case.
(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application dated 2-5-1998 to the effect that on the original plaint her signatures were left out and she may be permitted to sign on the plaint. Application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 6-3-1999 passed by Civil Judge, (J.D.) Mau-respondent No. 3.;