M/s Gayday Iron and Steel Company, Limited, Calcutta vs Municipal Committee, Amritsar

Rajindra Nath Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the defendant against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, dated November 1, 1975.

The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance on the basis of the contract for supply of C.I. Spun pipes and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 88,325.70 P. on account of damages for breach of contract.

The suit was contested by the defendants who inter alia, pleaded that the Civil Court at Amritsar had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and the plaint was not signed and filed by a properly authorised person. The trial Court decided that the civil Court at Amritsar had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and that the plaint had been signed and filed by an authorised person. The defendant has come up in revision against that order to this Court.

The first question that arises for determination is ; as to whether the civil Court at Amritsar had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The trial Court after taking in to consideration the evidence on the record has given a finding of fact that the contract was entered into by correspondence at Amritsar. After going through the judgment I do not find any fault with the said conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. If the contract was entered into at Amritsar, the civil Courts at Amritsar had jurisdiction to try the suit as part of cause of action arose there. In the circumstance the finding of the Court on this matter is correct and there are no sufficient grounds to interfere with it.

The second question that arises for decision is as to whether the Executive officer who signed and filed the plaint could do so. The Municipal Committee has filed a copy of the resolution Exhibit P. 23 wherein it was resolved by the Municipal Committee that the suit against the defendant may be filed. After the decision of the Municipal Committee, the Executive officer in whom all executive powers of the committer, rest signed and verified the plaints and instituted the same in the Court. Order XXIX rule 1 says that in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified 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. In the present case there is no dispute that the plaint bears signatures of the Executive Officer It cannot be denied that he is principal officer of the Committee. Therefore, he had the right to sign and verify he plaint. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any material infirmity in the decision of the said question. I therefore, affirm the finding of the trial Court.

For the reasons recorded above this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on November 8, 1976.