ALACS FINANZ LTD Vs. OKSH TECHNOLOGIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit has been dismissed on the short ground that it is not proved to have been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised person. This point was the subject matter of the first issue framed by the Trial Court. Two other issues were also framed. They were : 2 : RFA NO.872/2003 touching the merits of the case. The Trial Court left them open by not discussing the merits or de-merits of the claim set up in the suit or the defence taken in the written statement. The Court felt that there was no need to go into to the said two issues since the suit deserved to be dismissed on account of finding on the first issue.

(2.) The plaintiff in the suit who is appellant before us, has taken the plea that the Trial Court was wrong in its finding on the first issue and that, in any case, it was prepared to lead additional evidence to prove that the plaint had actually been signed and verified and the suit had actually been instituted by a duly authorised person. In that regard, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 has been filed before us. We feel that we need not decide that application one way or the other since the finding returned by the Trial Court is not sustainable.

(3.) Before we proceed to deal with the points in question as referred to above, we may mention that the : 3 : RFA NO. 872/2003 suit was for the recovery of Rs. 4,95,000/- along with interest and cost and the issues framed were as under :-