MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN 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 14.3.2001 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 connection to the respondent bearing no. 7180761 on 7.9.1993 at the premises of the respondent at 9, Community Centre, 2nd Floor, Lawrence Road, Delhi. THE telephone connection was installed on 18.9.1993. On account of failure of the respondent to pay the bills for the relevant periods, the appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,45,493/-. THE respondent in the suit was served by publication and as he did not appear, he was proceeded ex parte. THE plaintiff led ex parte evidence, but the suit was dismissed on the ground that Sh. R.C.Sharma, who was an Accounts Officer(legal) had no authority to sign and verify the pleadings. THE fact of the matter however was that PW-2 Sh. Shyam Sunder in fact identified the signatures of Sh. R.C.Sharma who was stated to be the Accounts Officer (Legal).

(3.) REFERENCE may also be made usefully to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar and others (1996) 6 SCC 660, in which, in para 13, it is said that there is a presumption of valid institution of a suit once the same is prosecuted for a number of years. This test as laid down by the Supreme Court is also satisfied in the present case inasmuch as the suit in fact has been prosecuted for four years by the appellant corporation for seeking an appropriate decree against the respondent by adducing evidence. I may note that the appellant is a public sector undertaking and not a private company where there would be disputes between two sets of shareholders claiming right to management and one set of shareholders are opposing another set of shareholders with respect to control and management of the company. This thus is an additional fact that there can be no dispute as to the authority of the person signing /verifying the pleadings and instituting the suit.