(1.) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, impugning the order dtd. 18/10/2019 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala in a civil suit, whereby application preferred by Satwant Singh, petitioner No.1 herein (defendant No.2 in the civil suit) under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC dtd. 12/12/2000, seeking permission to file written statement on behalf of Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Limited-petitioner No.2 (defendant No.1 in the civil suit) (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), has been dismissed. Accordingly, prayer has been made by the petitioners to set-aside the said order being against law and facts of the case and principles of natural justice and for allowing the application dtd. 12/12/2000.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dtd. 18/10/2019 (Annexure P-l) is not sustainable as the Court below has not appreciated the pleadings in the civil suit as pleaded by the petitioners in correct manner and has proceeded to pass the order on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is asserted that in the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC filed by petitioner No.1, specific objection was raised to the resolution purportedly passed by the Board of Directors, authorizing S.Ajit Singh-respondent No.2 to file written statement on behalf of petitioner No.2-Company. During the course of arguments, the Court permitted respondent No.1 to place on record and rely upon certain documents, which were neither previously filed nor do they find mentioned in the suit. There was no occasion for the petitioners to carry out any admissions/denials in respect of such additional documents, which have been erroneously taken into consideration as admitted documents by the trial Court. The issues, which have been raised in the application, have not been adjudicated upon. It is asserted that without there being any adjudication on the issue with regard to representing petitioner No.2-Company, the application of petitioner No.1 for permission to file written statement on behalf of petitioner No.2 has been decided. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court has finally determined the rights of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 relating to filing of the written statement for and on behalf of the Company. This has been done without application of mind and appreciation of relevant circumstances. It has been specifically urged in the written statement that there is no resolution or authority placed on record authorizing respondent No.2 to represent petitioner No.2 Company. In view of the dispute and manifest variation in facts, which were ex facie evident from the facts and circumstances of the case, the authority to represent petitioner No.2 was clearly a triable issue and without framing the issue to this effect, rejection of the application of the petitioners summarily is unsustainable. He also asserts that there was no deliberate delay on the part of petitioner No.1 in filing the application dtd. 12/12/2000 as is being said that two years have been taken by petitioner No.1 to file the said application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. This, he asserts, is in the light of the fact that there has been admissions on the part of the parties to enter into a settlement for which talks were under process so that the dispute amongst the family could be resolved. It is in this process that the delay has occurred. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that a specific objection has been raised by petitioner No.1 in his written statement that the suit has been filed and was being prescribed by respondent Nos.1 and respondent No.2 in active collusion and connivance with each other. The reply, which has been filed by respondent No.2 itself, demonstrate that respondent No.2, who has purportedly filed reply on behalf of petitioner No.2, has simply accepted the contentions as stated in the plaint. Respondent No.2 is assisting respondent No.1 in taking over the control and management of petitioner No.2-Company. It was incumbent upon the Civil Judge to frame a preliminary issue on the authority of respondent No.2 or petitioner No.1 to represent petitioner No.2-Company as the stand taken by defendant No.3 as regards the allegations levelled by respondent No.1 were in complete variation with the stand taken by petitioner No.1 in the written statement. Learned senior counsel has asserted that civil Court has failed to appreciate that none of the documents, which have been referred to in the impugned order and has been recorded to have been unequivocally and inevitably admitted by petitioner No.1 is uncalled for and these documents relate to particular issues and there is no admission on the part of petitioner No.1 in affirming the status of respondent No.2 as the Chairman and Managing Director of petitioner No.2-Company. He has referred to various documents and pleadings in support of his contentions, which have been placed on record.
(3.) It is asserted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that although the Court has referred to the pleadings in the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC relating to a plea that an issue be framed as to which of the defendants is authorized to represent defendant No.l-Company but no answer has been given to the same in the impugned order. It has neither been stated that the said issue is not required to be framed nor has it been stated that the issue is required to be framed. It is not even mentioned that the said aspect for framing of issue is kept open. He asserts that this is an important aspect, which the trial Court has ignored and in this regard he submits that in Para 1 of the plaint, it has been stated that S.Ajit Singh, defendant No.3 is the Chairman and the Managing Director and as such defendant No.1 Company is hereby sued through S.Ajit Singh, which fact is denied by the petitioners in the written statement and has specifically stated that petitioner No.1/defendant No.2 is in fact the Chairman of defendant No.1-Company. Defendant No.3 has no authority to represent defendant No.1-Company. He, thus, contends that the impugned order on this score itself deserves to be set-aside. He asserts that it is the duty of the Court to frame specific issue on all points raised in the pleadings and, thus, the omission in the impugned order to state as to whether said issue is to be framed or not nor keeping it open for a subsequent/relevant stage amounts to commission of a grave illegality causing serious prejudice to the case of the petitioners.