MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. SUMAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the Appellant, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. impugns the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2001 passed by Shri Prithvi Raj, Additional District Judge, Delhi and by which judgment and decree, the suit of the Appellant/Plaintiff has been dismissed on the ground that the Appellant has failed to prove the authority of the officer for signing and verifying the plaint.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Appellant sanctioned a telephone number to the Respondent bearing No. 2463419 on 15.4.1995 at the premises of the Respondent at 1/59, Gali No. 3, Main Road, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. On account of failure of the Respondent to pay the bills for the relevant periods, the Appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,07,182/- and which was contested. The Appellant led evidence through three witnesses. The suit was however dismissed on the ground that Sh.S.P. Gupta, who was Sr. Accounts Officer (legal) had no authority to sign and verify the pleadings. The fact of the matter is that PW-2 Sh. Qazi Mohd. Iqbal Hussain in fact identified the signatures of Sh.S.P. Gupta who was stated to be the Sr. Accounts Officer (Legal).

(3.) In my opinion, the court below has clearly fallen into an error in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaint was not duly signed and verified. In terms of Order 29 Rule 1 of the CPC, any principal officer of a corporation, such as the Appellant, can sign and verify the pleadings. It need not be gain said and that an Accounts Officer (Legal) is definitely a principal officer of the Appellant corporation. In this regard reference may be made to Section 2(30) of the Companies Act, 1956 which defines an "officer" and which provision reads: