KOTTAYAM BANK Vs. AHAMMED KANNU RAWTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In answer to a suit on the foot of a promissory note the defendant, who is the respondent before us, denied execution and consideration, and contended also that the suit was not by the promisee, a banking company, but only by its power of attorney agent who had no right to sue, and that the suit was therefore liable to rejection. The court below found against the defendant both on the question of execution and consideration, but, surprisingly enough, holding in his favour on his contention regarding the frame of the suit, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has therefore appealed.

(2.) The cause title of the plaint which is in Malayalam may be translated as follows:- The Kottayam Bank Ltd. for the above Bank its Mukthiyar C.K. Parameswara Panicker. In the face of this cause title we find it difficult to understand how the court below was able to say, In the present case it admits of no doubt that the plaintiff is C.K. Parameswara Panicker and not the Kottayam Bank Ltd. Even if the cause title is to be read as the Kottayam Bank Ltd., by its Mukthiyar C. K. Parameswara Panicker, as Mr. Krishnamurthi Iyer for the defendant would have us read it there is nothing in law to prevent a corporation from suing by its agent as provided by O.3 R.1 of the C.P.C. That the cause title in the present plaint would be a perfectly good cause title in such a suit is apparent from the forms given in appendix A to the Civil Procedure Code where under the head, Title of Suits, we find, A.B. (add description and residence). By his attorney C.D. (add description and residence.) That Shri Parameswara Panicker was the duly constituted attorney of the Bank was alleged in Para.5 of the plaint and was in fact admitted in the written statement. There is no question here whether the requirements of O.29 R.1, C.P.C. have been satisfied, for that provision only says that when a suit is brought by or against a corporation the pleadings may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the persons specified therein. That provision, as has been pointed out in Calico Printers Assocn. v. Karim and Brothers AIR 1930 Bom. 566, is only permissive and does not preclude a corporation from taking advantage of O.3 R.1 and O.6 R.14 and having its pleadings signed by a duly constituted agent. Moreover no objection was taken on the score that the plaint in this case was not signed by the proper person. Reading the cause title we have no doubt that the plaintiff in this case is the Kottayam Bank Ltd., and even if the cause title is to be read as meaning that the suit is brought on its behalf by its Mukthiyar, it is, as we have shown, a perfectly good suit.

(3.) On the question of execution and consideration Pws. 1 and 2, the head clerk and the agent of the Athirampuzha branch of the Bank in whose favour the suit promissory note, Ext. A was executed have spoken to its execution by the defendant in their presence and have also spoken to the manner in which consideration passed. The defendant had admittedly drawn a cheque, Ext. E, for Rs. 5000/- on some other Bank and cashed it at the Athirampuzha branch of the plaintiff Bank, but admittedly again the cheque was dishonoured, and when the defendant was called upon on repay the money he made payment in part, and, after a lapse of two years, not being able to pay the balance, executed the suit promissory note for the amount due. This evidence is supported by the entries in the books of the Bank and by several other documents, some signed by the defendant himself, and referred to in Para.6 to 9 of the judgment of the lower court, and as against this there was only the bare denial of the defendant who denied everything, even the receipt of the notice issued to him by the plaintiff Bank before the suit although there is the postal acknowledgment Ext. F1 to prove it. It is hardly necessary to consider the question further. The court below was quite right in believing the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 supported as it was by documentary evidence, and the learned counsel for the defendant has not been able to advance any reason to show that it erred.