:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4477 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4477 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4477 OF 2008 Shri Narayan Sopana More & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. Dr.Shyamrao Shivram Babar & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan , adv. for the Petitioners . Mr.Sanjay Shinde with Shri M.M.Sathaye , advs. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 25th November, 2008. DATE: 25th November, 2008. DATE: 25th November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs while the petitioners are the original defendant nos.5 to 8. Plaintiffs had filed special civil suit no.124 of 2004 on 8-4-2004 for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.27 lacs. Out of that, an amount of Rs.5 lacs was paid as earnest money on 11-3-2001. The defendant nos.5 to 9 filed their written statement on 30-6-2005 contesting the suit on several grounds. On 22-11-2007, the plaintiff filed an application Exhibit 43 under Order VI Rule 17 pointing out that due to oversight at page 9 of the plaint, i.e., at the end of the plaint, they had not signed while verification at page 10 was infact signed by them. :2: Therefore, by this application, they sought permission to put signatures on page 9 also. This application was opposed by the petitioners. After hearing the parties, the trial Court allowed the application. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the pleadings were not signed, it has to be held that the plaint was not properly filed on 8-4-2004 and it should be deemed to have been filed only after it is signed after obtaining permission as per the application dated 22nd November, 2007. He contended that the said permission could not have been granted beyond limitation. However, after perusal of the record, I find that below the last prayer clause on page 9 of the plaint, names of both the plaintiffs were typed and space was left above their names for their signatures. Page no.10 contains verification of the pleadings. Below the verification again, the names of both the plaintiffs and their advocate were typed. Both the plaintiffs had signed that part and thus, verified pleadings. It is true that pleadings have to be signed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code and they are required to be verified under Order VI Rule 15 and thus, the signatures are required below the pleadings as well as below the verification. From the record, it is clear that due to :3: sheer oversight, plaintiffs had failed to put signatures below the pleadings on page 9 of the plaint while they had actually signed on page 10. Defendants had contested the suit by filing written statement and nowhere any objection was raised on this point. Plaintiffs themselves moved an application in 2007 pointing out that such mistake was committed by them and they sought liberty to put signatures. Amendment does not change the nature of the suit nor it causes any prejudice to the defendants. Permission to put signatures granted by the trial Court was purely technical though necessary for filing the suit properly. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I see no substance in the writ petition. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)