BIRLA DLW LIMITED Vs. PREM ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing their suit for recovery. The learned Additional District Judge held that the appellant was entitled to recovery, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove that the plaint had been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised person.

(2.) . During the pendency of the appeal, appellant's application for change in name from M/s. India Linoleum Ltd. to M/s. Birla DLW Ltd. had been allowed.

(3.) . The Trial Court record had been called for and has been perused. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Additional District Judge erred in deciding the Issue No. 1 against the appellant, viz. "whether the plaintiff firm is duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised person."