SMT. BINA KUMAR Vs. SRI JANARDAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in a suit for eviction challenge an order dated Jan. 30, 2017 passed on an application under Sec. 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

(2.) The defendants say that though the suit has been filed by nine plaintiffs, the plaint has been verified and signed only by the plaintiff no. 1 and even the vakalatnama has been signed by the first plaintiff and not the others. The petitioners refer to the oral evidence received in the previous round of proceedings under Sec. 7(2) of the said Act in 2011. It appears from page 77 of the present petition that in course of the cross examination of the first plaintiff on Nov. 11, 2011, he claimed that the plaint and the vakalatnama had been "executed only by me". He also accepted that the plaintiff nos. 2 to 9 did not sign the plaint or execute any vakalatnama in connection with the suit. In the light of such admission by the first plaintiff, the suit was liable to be dismissed as incompetent.

(3.) The plaintiffs are represented and it is submitted that the non-signing of the plaint by some of the plaintiffs may be regarded as a curable defect. It is further submitted that such a defect may be cured at any stage. On behalf of the plaintiffs it is pointed out that the first plaintiff claimed that he was appointed attorney by the other plaintiffs and, as such, the failure by the other plaintiffs to sign the plaint or execute any vakalatnama has to be regarded as a mere irregularity that is capable of correction.