1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3428 OF 2010 Swapnil Murlidhar Morande .. Petitioner versus Marix Cellular (International) Services Pvt Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.Nitin H. Kasliwal for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th April 2010. P.C.: . In the morning session, the petition was dismissed for non prosecution. On the oral request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petition is restored. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent-Company is the plaintiff. The respondent has filed a suit for recovery of an amount from the petitioner. An application was made by the petitioner contending that the suit has not been signed and verified by an officer who was duly authorised by the respondent. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the power of attorney which is relied upon in the suit. He submitted that the said power of attorney proves that the suit has not been 2 signed and verified by the authorised person. 4. I have considered the submissions. It must be stated that the impugned order is not happily worded. At the same time, it will have to be noted that the defect in signature and the verification clause in plaint is always curable and therefore at the stage at which application was made, the trial Court could not have dismissed the suit on the ground of the alleged defect. There is no error in the impugned order. However, the issue whether there is a defect in the verification as alleged and the issue whether the officer concerned was authorised to institute the suit are kept open which will be considered by the trial Court at an appropriate stage. Subject to what is stated above, no interference is called for. Writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)