2004 PLP 2018 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑O. VII, R.11 & O. XXIX, R.1‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Rejection of plaint‑‑‑Ingredients‑‑‑Plaint could be rejected if it did not disclose any cause of action; where claim was under‑valued and plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time fixed by the Court, failed to do so; arid where relief claimed was properly valued, but plaint was written upon paper insufficiently stamped and plaintiff on being required by the Court 10 supply the requisite stamp paper within a time fixed by the Court, had failed to do so; and also where suit appeared ,from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law‑‑‑Plaint, in the present case, was sought to be rejected on the ground that suit was not maintainable as Special Resolution of Board of Directors of the Company had not been attached with the plaint ‑‑‑Under Order XXIX, R.1, C. P. C. airy pleadings in a suit filed by or against a Corporation could be verified on behalf of Corporation by Secretary or by any Director or any other principal officer of Corporation who was able to depose the facts of the case‑‑‑Suit had been filed by Executive Director of the Company who was fully conversant with the facts of the case‑‑‑Written statement filed by defendant did not show that any objection was taken that the suit was filed by ‑ unauthorized person‑‑‑Where objection regarding authority was not raised ,at the earliest, it would not be entertained belatedly‑‑‑Courts below had rightly appreciated said position‑‑‑In absence of any illegality warranting interference to exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, Constitutional petition was dismissed. Messrs Master sons through its Partner v. Messrs Ebrahim Enterprises and another 1988 CLC 1381 and National Bank of Pakistan and others v. Karachi Development Authority and others PLD 1999 Kar. 260 ref. A.W. Butt for Petitioner. TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI, J.‑‑‑Respondent No. 1/plaintiff, a private limited company through Fazle Wadood Khan its Executive Director, filed Suit No.170/1 on 15‑10‑1995 against Muhammad Imran Bashir petitioner/defendant in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nowshera, for recovery of Rs.5,52,470 on the ground of his failure to pay the said outstanding amount. The said suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement. During the pendency of suit the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The said application was, however, resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing written reply. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 21‑6‑2003. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner/defendant filed Revision Petition No.27 of 2003 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge‑11, Nowshera but the same was also dismissed vide judgment/ order dated 31‑10‑2003. Being not contented with the judgments/orders passed by the learned Courts below, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in hand.

2. Mr. A.W. Butt, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, argued that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that the suit was filed by incompetent person as no one was authorized by the company through its special resolution, hence the plaint deserves rejection under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. We are afraid, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. Under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose any cause of action; where the claim is under valued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time fixed by the Court, failed to do so; and where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp‑paper within a time fixed by the Court, failed to do so; and where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. When we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant to show us any law under which the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was barred, his only answer to this effect was that the suit was not maintainable as the special Resolution of the Board of Directors has not been attached with the plaint. Under Order XXIX, rule 1, C.P.C. any pleadings in a suit filed by or against a corporation may be verified on behalf of the corporation by the Secretary or by any Director or any' other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose the facts of the case. The perusal of record shows that the suit has been filed by the Executive Director of the company who was fully conversant with the facts of the case. Likewise the perusal of written statement filed by the .petitioner/defendant shows that no objection that the suit was filed by unauthorized person, was taken by the defendant therein. It is by now settled that where objection regarding the authority is not raised at the earliest, it will not be entertained belatedly as held in the case reported as Messrs Mastersons through its Partner v. Messrs Ebrahim Enterprises and another 1988 CLC 1381 in the following words‑‑‑ "The defendant in their pleadings have not raised the plea that suit has been filed by some unauthorized person. Nether any issue to this effect was framed nor such question was put or suggested to Noor Muhammad. In order to determine whether the suit has been filed by a person competent to do so, a reference has to be made to the Articles of Association of the Company. As no specific issue was framed, none of the parties have led evidence or the question whether the plaint has been instituted by an authorized person or not and, therefore, Articles of Association have not ' been produced. The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company and the person, who has signed and verified the plaint, is not only Manager of the Company but is also its partner. The suit has been‑duly admitted by the Court and no objection has been raised by the parties in the pleadings or when said Noor Muhammad was in the witness‑box. The noting on the plaint shows that the office had called upon the plaintiff to produce the power‑of‑attorney or a copy of the resolution of the Company in favour of the Manager Noor Muhammad. The note dated 27‑1‑1982 shows that the above objection was complied with and thereafter suit was admitted. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said at this stage that the suit has been filed by an unauthorized person, therefore, this objection cannot be sustained at this stage." A similar view was taken in National Bank of Pakistan and others v. Karachi Development Authority and others PLD 1999 Karachi

260. The Courts below have, therefore, rightly appreciated the said B position. We have not been able to find out any illegality warranting interference in the impugned judgments orders in exercise of our extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, the writ petition in hand is dismissed in limine together with Civil Miscellaneous No.39 of 2004. H.B.T./128/P Petition dismissed.