DENA BANK Vs. BEDI FABRICATION WORKS AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Bank filed Civil Suit No. 5-B/82 in the Court of District Judge, Durg for recovery of Rs. 1,39,000/- and odd from the respondents. Inter alia the suit was resisted on the ground that plaintiff-Bank was not a body corporate duly constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and that the suit was presented by a person not competent to sign and verify the plaint. The following issue was cast on this controversy touching the maintainability of the suit :

(2.) An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been presented here for leave to file the power of attorney in favour of the said Development Officer of the Bank empowering him to sign and verify plaint on behalf of we Bank. The submission is that through inadvertence of the learned Counsel for the Bank this document was not produced at the time of the trial and no evidence could be led to prove issue No. 1. This application is seriously objected to by the otherwise on the ground that Bank full opportunity at the time of the trial and yet did not prove the aforesaid issue.

(3.) After hearing the, learned Counsel for the parties, we are of view that this appeal must be allowed. True it is that it was a grievous error on the part of the Counsel representing the Bank who failed to produce this document at the time of trial but process of law is dispensation of justice and the same should not be allowed to be frustrated on technicalities like the present one. We may observe that the status of the Bank as a body corporate could not have been that the subject matter of an issue in view of the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. As far the competence of Bank's Development Manager to sign and verify the plaint is concerned in view of the power of attorney tendered now he is so empowered.