2012 PLP 250 (CLC)

IJAZ AHMAD, J.

The petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of 34044 rupees against the respondents on account of the differential occurring between the pay-in-slip deposited by the petitioner and the amount entered in his credit by the respondent-Bank. The suit was resisted by the respondents. A preliminary objection was raised that the suit was not competent as the plaintiff was a corporate body and the suit had not been filed by a duly authorized agent. The learned trial Court framed issues. The parties led evidence. The issues No.1 and 6 read as follows: Issue No.l. Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorized agent of the plaintiff firm If not its effect? OPP Issue No.6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.34044 on the grounds as mentioned in the plaint? OPP. Issue No.6 was decided in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. The defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 3, were held liable to make payment of the disputed differential amount to the plaintiff/petitioner. These findings were not challenged by any of the respondents im appeal. Issue No.1 was decided against the plaintiff/petitioner. It was held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff/petitioner had failed to bring on record the memorandum and articles of association to show the authority of the Managing Director or the Director Marketing to institute the suit. Ultimately, the suit, held to have been instituted by an incompetent person, was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, vide decree dated 25-3-1991. The findings of the learned trial Court on issue No.1 were maintained.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Order VI, Rules 14 and 15 prescribed the mode of signing and verification of the pleadings. The pleadings are to be signed by the party and his pleader or by any person duly authorized by him to sign. The pleadings can be verified by the party or some person proved to the satisfaction of the Court. to be acquainted with the facts of the case, Under Order XXIX, C.P.C. the pleadings may be verified and signed on behalf of the Corporation by the Secretary or by any Director or other principal officer of the Corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. It is contended that Order XXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. specifically and Order VI, Rules 14 and 15 generally apply in present case wherein the plaintiff is a corporation. Both the provisions of law should be read together to facilitate the litigants in prosecuting their causes and should not be interpreted in a manner that would impede the itinerary to justice. Reliance is placed on 1996 CLC 1064 titled "Modern Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory (Private) Limited v. Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Limited" wherein it has been held that a Secretary or a Director of a Corporation can sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the Corporation. The essential qualification of such a person would be that he should be able to depose to the facts of the case and any irregularity in doing so was cureable even at the later stage.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that the words "person duly authorized" occurring in Order VI, Rule 14 deserve the emphasis and the import due. ? Since the plaint was signed and verified by a person not duly authorized under the articles and memorandum of association, therefore, institution of the plaint was ab initio void and could not be cured at a later stage. He places reliance on 1987 CLC 367 titled "Abubakar Saley Mayet v. Abbot Laboratories and another", and 1990 MLD 538 titled "Emirates Bank International Ltd. v. Super Drive-In Limited and others.".,

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

5. As far the findings on Issue No.6 are concerned, both the learned Courts below have decided the said issue in favour of the A petitioner. None of the respondents has challenged the same findings in appeal, therefore, cannot be agitated before this Court. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents as 1987 CLC 367 is earlier in time and has been succeeded by the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner cited as 1996 CLC 1064. Another judgment referred by the learned counsel for the respondents as 1990 MLD 538 goes counter to the arguments advanced by him. In paragraph No.9 of the said judgment, the learned Court has observed that the production of the resolution was not necessary and that it was sufficient to see that the person signing the pleadings should have been duly authorized under Order VI, C.P.C. or he would be occupying one or other offices as mentioned in rule 1 of Order VI, XXIX, C.P.C. that is Secretary, any Director or Principal officer of the Corporation. The provisions of Order VI, Rules 14 and 15 and Order XXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. are neither contradictory nor exclusive of each other. The said provisions are complimentary to each other and should be read and interpreted in a manner that would facilitate the litigants to press the law for advancement of justice. The said provisions should not be interpreted in a manner that would retard or jeopardize or complicate .the course of law and the itinerary to justice. I seek support from the case-law cited as B 2008 CLC 1057 [Karachi] titled Javedan Cement Limited through Chief Operating Officer v. Province of Sindh". In the instant case, the pleading has been signed and verified by the Director Marketing which fulfil the requirements of Order VI, Rule 14 and 15 and Order XXI Rule 1, C.P.C. I agree with the case-law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the judgment cited as NLR 990 CLC 650 referred by the learned counsel for the respondents. I accept this revision petition, set aside the judgments passed and the decrees drawn by both the learned Courts below. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs throughout. M.H./P-6/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision allowed.