D.S. Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of a suit Under Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act. The suit was instituted on 28 -6 -1952. The matter went upto the Board of Revenue when the suit was remanded for a fresh hearing. It was thereafter that the Respondents raised an objection to the institution of the suit, namely, that it had not been signed by Bajrang Bahadur Singh named in the plaint as a co -Plaintiff. Bajrang Bahaur Singh then signed the plaint and the suit was deemed to have been instituted on that date. It was for this reason that the suit was held to be barred by limitation. The Judicial Officer, Kunda, recorded a finding on the other issues also, but the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue hearing the First Appeal and Second Appeal, respectively, maintained the order of the Judicial Officer, on the ground that the suit shall be deemed to have been properly presented, when it was signed by Bajrang Bahadur Singh, but by that time it was barred by limitation.
(2.) ORDER IV, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure and Order VI, Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure govern the presentation and signing of the plaint. These provisions correspond to Sections 48 and 51 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, 1877. The Privy Council had the occasion to consider the effect of these sections in the case of Mohini Mohun Das and Ors. v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das and Ors., ILR 17 Cal. 580. Considering that the existing provisions are similar, the rule laid down by the Privy Council can still be regarded to be a good law. Consequently, the plaint bearing the name of two Plaintiffs but presented and signed by only one shall be deemed to have been presented on the initial date of presentation even though the other Plaintiff signs the plaint at a much later date. Therefore, the plaint when signed by Bajrang Bahadur Singh shall be deemed to have been presented on the date it had originally been filed. A similar view was expressed in Bibi Asghari and Anr. v. Muhammad Kasim and Ors. : AIR 1951 Pat 323 and All India Reporter Ltd. Bombay v. Ram Chandra Dhonda Datar : AIR 1961 Bom. 292. The next point for consideration is whether the plaints in revenue suits are governed by Order IV, Rule 1 and Order VI, Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure, or a special procedure has been laid down in the UP Tenancy Act.
(3.) MY attention was drawn to Sections 180 and 246 of the UP Tenancy Act in support of the contention that the plaint must be signed by all the Plaintiffs.;