LAWS(GJH)-1998-12-12

UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. TATA SSL LIMITED

Decided On December 22, 1998
UNION BANK OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
TATA SSL LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that in the title of this civil revision application by mistake the petitioner has been mentioned as original plaintiff in the suit. The petitioner is defendant in the suit out of which this revision application has arisen.

(2.) Union Bank of India, by this civil revision application, under section 115, C.P.C., 1908, challenges the order dated 6th August, 1998 passed in special civil suit No.120/92 below Ex.94. I am constrained to observe that the learned trial court is also not careful in its checking, to the orders which have been passed by it. In this order though it is of 6th August, 1998 but the date has been mentioned as 6th August, 1978. Be that as it may.

(3.) The plaintiff-respondent No.1, a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act instituted special civil suit No.120/92 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Navsari against the defendant No.3-petitioner and the respondents No.2 and 3 herein for recovery of Rs.1,04,490-38ps. together with costs and running interest. The defendant No.3- petitioner filed its written statements in which a plea has been taken that the suit is not tenable in law as well as facts. It is further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff's plaint and suit suffers from legal and factual infirmities. The issues have been framed in this suit on 29th June, 1995. On behalf of the plaintiff, witness No.1, Pawankumar Mahendrapal Jain, was examined and his statements were recorded. He produced documents Ex.58 and 82, two power of attorneys. The defendant No.3-petitioner filed an application Ex.94 and prayer has been made therein that the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit on the ground that only one of the power of attorney holders has signed the plaint and same is not maintainable be framed. This application has been contested by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and under the impugned order that application came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision application before this Court.