NORTHLAND TRADERS Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the defendants is directed against the order dated 7-2-1992, passed by VIII Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad, deciding the preliminary issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and holding that the person who signed and verified the plaint was properly authorised to do so.

(2.) Brief facts so far as relevant for the purposes of the present revision are that the plaintiff-respondent filed original suit No. 686 of 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge, Moradabad against the defendant-applicants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,40,553.77 paise (Rupees Seven Lacs Forty Thousand Five Hundred fifty Three and Seventy Seven Paise) along with the pendentilite and future interest. The suit is being contested by the defendant-applicants and is at present pending before the VIII Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad.--n paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff had stated that the plaintiff was body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 and having its head office at Mandvi Baroda and Branches including the one at Chowmukhpul, Moradabad and K. N. Pandey is a Principal Officer and constituted attorney who is authorised by the plaintiff to sign and verify the pleading and to file suit and other documents including applications and affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff,--n the written statement, the defendants, inter alia, denied that K. N. Pandey was a Principal Officer and constituted attorney and he was authorised by the plaintiff to sign and verify the pleadings and to file suit and other documents on behalf of the plaintiff. They further pleaded that the plaintiff is put to specific proof of the contents of the said paragraphs which were not admitted by the defendants. On the pleading of the parties, the court below framed the relevant issues and issue No. 1 was to the following effect :-

(3.) The court below took up this issue as preliminary issue. The plaintiff examined K. N. Pandey, who had signed and verified the plaint, as P.W. 1. The said witness produced a photostat copy of the power of attorney alleged to have been executed in his favour by one Mihir Kumar Bose on 14-9-1984. It also appears that he produced the original power of attorney dated 4-9-1984 for the perusal of the Court. The court below after hearing the learned counsel for the parties had, vide the impugned order dated 7-2-1992, decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Aggrieved, the defendant-applicants have preferred the above noted revision before this Court. I have heard Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the defendant-applicants and Shri V. B. Singh and Sri R. P. Agarwal, learned counsels appearing for the plaintiff-respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel, the revision on itself is being finally decided at the admission stage.