JAGDISH CHANDRA SAHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Money Suits Nos. 227 and 228 of 1960 filed by the plaintiff petitioner were decreed ex parte on the 21st of December, 1962 Two applications under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the "Code") were filed on 19-1-1963 for setting the ex parte decrees aside Roth these applications were filed on being verified by one Golab Ram Ganju, slating that he was specially authorised by the Union of India as the owner of the South Eastern Railway, the applicant in the case to verify the applications. Both the applications were heard and dismissed on 22-6-1963 on the ground that Golab Ram Ganju had no authority to file the applications and no sufficient cause had been made out for setting aside the ex parte decrees and restoration of the two money suits in their original file. On 20-8-1963, two applications were filed under Sections 114, 151 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code for a review of the order, dated 22-6 1963. They were again filed on the verification of Golab Ram Ganju but this time with two special powers of authority signed by the Deputy General Manager of the South Eastern Railway. None of these powers bears any date. In both these powers it is stated that the Deputy General Manager was authorising Golab Ram Ganju to act for and represent the Union of India and the South Eastern Railway Administration in the matter of "Miscellaneous Case No. . . of 1964, arising out of Money Suit No. 228 of 1960", in the other case, the number being Money Suit No. 227 of 1960. But in none, the number of the Miscellaneous case was mentioned. It is manifest that these undated powers, keeping the number of the miscellaneous eases blank, filed on 20-8-1963, were given by the Deputy General Manager and obviously were meant for the two Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 26 and 27 of 1963 Both the review applications were allowed by the Court below by its order, dated 27-4-1964, and the order, dated 22-6-1963, dismissing Miscellaneous Case Nos. 5 and 6 of 1963 was recalled But even in this order, dated 27-4-1964 i1 was clearly held that the two miscellaneous cases were not wrongly dismissed on the ground of want of authority, because the special powers of authority filed on 20 8 1963 were meant for Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 26 and 27 of 1963, and could not relate back to be meant for Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 5 and 6 of 1963 Thereafter the two Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 5 and 6 of 1963 have been allowed by the Court below by its order dated 8-9-1964. The plaintiff, there fore, filed two revision applications in this Court against the said order

(2.) In my opinion, the Court below has committed an error of jurisdiction in allowing Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 5 and 6 of 1963, and two clear errors are there. In view of the decision of the Full Bench in Doma Choudhary v. Ham Naresh Lal, AIR 1959 Pat 121, Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 26 and 27 were not maintainable, and the order, dated 22-6-1963, could only be interfered with in appeal 1 am conscious of the fact that the petitioner did not come to this Court against the order, dated 27-4-1964 Nonetheless, in view of the decision of the Full Bench, the order being completely without jurisdiction. I can, as is the well settled view of this Court, interfere with those orders even in the present civil revision applications, as the final order passed on 8-9-1964 in the two miscellaneous cases, is the result of the order, dated 27-4-1964.

(3.) Apart from the fact that the Court below had held in its order, dated 27-4 1964, that the two special powers of authority could not and were not meant for authorising Golab Ram Ganju for filing Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 5 and 6 of 1963. I find that the fact is so obvious that it could not be otherwise The learned Additional Munsif has held them otherwise on a clear misreading of the contents of the documents He says that "These documents show that Ghulab Ram Ganju has been authorised by the proper authorities to take all steps in miscellaneous cases arising out of the above M. S. suits". This is not so. Golab Ram Ganju was not authorised to take all steps in all miscellaneous cases. As I have said above, only it was mentioned "Miscellaneous Case No. of 1964" in each of the powers. That meant one miscellaneous case, although did not give the number at all, and on the facts it was clearly meant that the authorisation was for filing Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 26 and 27 of 1963.