SIVARAMA THEVAR Vs. NARASUS SPINNING MILLS OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for bare injunction. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit by a judgement and decree dated 27.03.2007 in O.S. No. 239 of 2006. On appeal, the lower appellate Court reversed and set aside the same and decreed the suit as prayed for by a judgement and decree dated 27.04.2009 in A.S. No. 47 of 2009. Hence the appellant(defendant) is before this Court in the Second Appeal. The arguments advanced by Mr. S. Sivathilakar, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr. D. Nallathambi, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials available on record are also perused and taken into consideration.

(2.) The Second Appeal came to be admitted on 10.08.2009 formulating four questions designated as A, B, C and D and one more question without any number or such designation as substantial questions of law. Upon considering the judgements of the Courts below and the other materials, I am of the considered view that the substantial questions of law have not been framed in a proper manner and hence they require to be re-formulated and re-cast after omitting unnecessary questions and correcting the mistakes found in the respective questions. The following are the substantial questions of law based on which the judgement in this case has got to be pronounced:

(3.) The respondent herein/Plaintiff is described in the plaint as "Narasu's Spinning Mills, Salem, through its Managing Director represented by his authorised signatory Mr. G. Paneerselvam". In the long cause-title also, the very same particulars have been provided with an addition of the father's name of G. Paneerselvam and the Office particulars of the above said concern namely "No. 16, Court Road, Salem". No-where in the plaint, the nature of composition of the plaintiff concern has been spelt out. The cause-titles, both short and long, suggest the plaintiff to be a company, because it has been stated to be filing the suit through its Managing Director. However, the Managing Director in-turn is said to have been authorised G. Paneerselvam as his authorised signatory. The usual practice shall be to name the persons by their position in the company to be authorized signatories. When there is a Managing Director, he cannot have another person as his authorised signatory. The cause-title thus provides utter confusion.