INTERNATIONAL CONTINENTAL CAOUTCHOUE COMPAGNIE Vs. MEHTA AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this suit, which is undefended, was before me for hearing, I found that there was no affidavit forth-coming as to the fitness of N.C. Dutt who has signed and verified the plaint on behalf of the company to do so. I accordingly asked the registrar to report as to what had been done in this respect and reserved judgment lest the competency of the suit might thereby ha affected.

(2.) I am informed that the suit being by a corporation and there being a statement in the plaint that, Mr. Narayan Chandra Dutt is the banian and constituted attorney of the Calcutta branch of the plaintiff company and, as such, a principal officer of the plaintiff company. He has power to sign the plaint and the warrant on behalf of the plaintiff company and he is able to depose to the facts of this case no affidavit has been required. This I understand, is founded upon a judgment of Sale, J., in Sreenath Banerjee V/s. E.I. Ry. Co. [1894] 22 Cal. 268 in which the learned judge held that if a plaint or a written statement contains a statement to the effect that the person purporting to verify is a principal officer of the company or corporation and is able to depose to the facts of the case, the verification in the usual form would probably be sufficient. This judgment lays down no rule as suggested and it has been misapplied. I shall give my reasons for this presently; but first I propose to consider what the Civil Procedure Code and the rules of the Court require as regards verification of the pleadings.

(3.) Order 6, Rule 15(1), Civil P.C., provides that every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.