1. Admit. Learned counsel appearing for respondent waive service. Returnable forthwith and is heard finally.

2. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 7th April, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge 1, Nashik allowing the application filed by the respondent under order 7 rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and thereby rejecting the plaint. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under :-

3. On 18th August 2005 the appellant (original plaintiff) filed a suit against the respondent (original defendant) being Civil Suit No.216 of 2005 in the District court Nashik inter alia praying for a declaration that the threats of the defendant of infringement proceedings against the plaintiff are baseless and unjustified prayed for perpetual injunction and money decree. In paragraph 35 of the plaint it is averred that Mr. Siddharth Sachdev who is a director of the plaintiff company and who is aware of and is able to depose the facts of this case has signed and declared the plaint. The plaint is signed and verified by said Mr. Siddharth Sachdev on behalf of the plaintiff company. Parties in this order are described as were described in the impugned order.

4. Sometimes in the year 2006 the defendant filed an application under order VII rule 11 of the code of civil procedure 1908 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the said suit inter alia praying for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to its contention that the District Court at Nashik did not have territorial jurisdiction to try entertain and dispose of the said suit.

5. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a detailed reply. By an order dated 25th September 2006 passed by the learned District Judge II Nashik the said application filed in the year 2006 by the defendant under order VII rule 11 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. It is ordered that the issue as to territorial jurisdiction will be framed and decided alongwith other issues. The learned District Judge on perusal of the pleading, document produced on record and admitted fact rendered a prima facie finding that the defendant had issued letter to the plaintiff about alleged infringement of its patent which gave cause of action for the plaintiff to file the said suit. The defendant did not challenge the said order passed by the learned District Judge rejecting the said application filed by the defendant.

6. On 28th October, 2009 the defendant filed an application under order VII rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inter alia praying for rejection of the plaint. It is averred in the said application that the plaint was filed by Mr. Siddharth Sachdev claiming to be a director of the plaintiff company. It is submitted that order 29 rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure does not authorise persons mentioned therein to institute suits on behalf of the companies but authorises them only to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the companies. The power to institute the suit on behalf of the companies rests only with the board of directors. It is submitted that there is no resolution of the board of directors of the plaintiff company authorizing the filing of the present suit. It is submitted that there is no averment in the entire plaint that the board of directors had authorized Mr. Siddharth Sachdev to file the present suit and submitted that the said Mr. Siddharth Sachdev had no authority to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff company.

7. The plaintiff resisted the said application by filing a reply on 26th April, 2010. The plaintiff contended that a similar application was filed for rejection of plaint on the ground that the District Court at Nashik had no jurisdiction which application was rejected by the learned District Court. It is averred in the reply that the application did not fall under any of the clauses of rul