Norman Macleod, C J

[1] The plaintiff sued to recover the balance due in Samvat 1973 from the defendant and the pried of goods supplied is Samvats 1973 and 1974, and for a further amount of Rs. 35 odd. The plaint was first presented on the 2brd October 1920 signed by Vithaldas, a servant of the plaintiff, while the Vakilpatra of the Vakil was also signed by Vithaldas. When these facts came to the notice of the Judge on the 3rd December 1920, he found that the plaint was not properly signed and not properly presented, by the plaintiff, and that the pleader presenting the plaint was not duly authorized, and, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs. We think he was right in holding that the plaint was not duly presented and not duly signed, as the plaintiff made uo effort to prove that Vithaldas was his recognized agent trading on his behalf while he was away from the jurisdiction. But we think that if the plaintiff had applied to be allowed to sign the plaint and present it on that day, he should have been allowed to do so. Then of course the question of limitation would arise. We have nothing to do at present with that. So that to that extent the Rule will be made absolute, the decree dismissing the suit will be set aside and the plaintiff will have an opportunity of having his suit considered as if it was tiled on the 3rd December 1920. The plaintiff must pay the costs up to date.