RSA No.3850 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3850 of 2009. Decided on: October 27, 2009. Bhim Singh and others .. Petitioners VERSUS Hanuman Singh and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the appellants. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for possession claiming ownership over 3 kanals 1 marla being 1/40th share of total land measuring 123 kanals 2 marlas, situated in the village Kohli, Tehsil Adampur, and challenging the decree dated 04.03.1992, passed by Civil Court was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs-respondents along with his brothers Ramjit Singh and Ammi Lal suffered decree dated 04.03.1992, willingly and no fraud had been committed. The said finding has been reversed by the lower appellate Court in an appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents. . . . 1 RSA No.3850 of 2009 The short question which was required to be adjudicated upon by the lower appellate Court was whether decree dated 04.03.1992 passed in Civil Suit No.1007 of 1992 titled Bhim Singh etc., Vs.Ammi Lal and others, was illegal, without jurisdiction and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs-respondents. The lower appellate Court had examined the plaint in the said suit and found that the plaint had not been signed by counsel Shri H.C.Chaudhary, or by the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4, who are the defendants-appellants before this Court. Though the power of attorney (EX.PW2/2) is signed by the counsel only but it did not bear the signatures of the plaintiffs of that suit i.e. Bhim Singh and others. Counsel for the appellants has contended that the non-existence of signatures of the plaintiffs on the plaint or the power of attorney are only procedural defects and non-compliance of any of said procedural requirements relating to the pleadings etc. should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection. The procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon Uday Shankar Triyar Vs.Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and anr., 2005(2) RCR 637. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The curable defects had not been cured by the plaintiffs. The decree on the basis of the irregularities was challenged . . . 2 RSA No.3850 of 2009 by the plaintiffs-respondents. The trial court had not appreciated the said legal proposition. The judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court is well reasoned and does not warrant any interference. No substantial question of law is involved warranting interference in the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 27, 2009. rka . . . 3