(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2014 in Application No.4709 of 2014 in C.S.No.216 of 2012 filed by the Appellants/Defendants.
(2.) THE appellants are the defendants in the Civil Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money and for other reliefs. The Appellants filed two applications in the Suit in Application No.4708 of 2009 to reject the evidence of C.Ravindranath, who has examined as PW -1 on the ground that he has no locus -standi to represent the plaintiff. Application No.4709 of 2014 was filed to summon the partner of the plaintiff firm, C.Jamuna to appear in person to authenticate the insertions including signatures in the plaint.
(3.) THE respondent/plaintiff is a partnership firm represented by its partner C.Jamuna and they laid the Suit for recovery of money secured by way of mortgage of immovable property. One C.Ravindranath was authorised by the plaintiff to appear before Court and represent the plaintiff firm. The letter of authorisation is Exhibit P.1. Proof affidavit was filed through the said authorised person C.Ravindranath. The appellants/defendants contend that the principal, C.Jamuna alone will have personal knowledge about the suit transaction as she is the person who verified the plaint. Further, it was contended that the person who verified the plaint has to examine herself as PW -1 and in this regard reference was made to Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC. On the above ground, the appellants/defendants sought for rejection of the evidence of C.Ravindranath, recorded in chief and to summon C.Jamuna to depose with regard to the suit transaction and subject herself to cross examination. The Appellants/defendants represented by the first appellant appeared in person before the learned Single Judge and contended that the partner of the plaintiff firm alone will have personal knowledge about the suit transaction and reiterated the contention that Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC mandates the person verifying the pleadings to depose before Court.