Point of Law: Rule 1 Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Subscription and verification of pleading" In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of corporation by secretary or by any director or other principal officer of corporation who is able to depose to facts of case.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. The appellant/defendant No. 3 has filed the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 7-3-2022 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Durg, District Durg in Civil Suit No. 3A/2018 by which the learned trial court has allowed the suit filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff for getting vacant possession of plot No. 13 situated at Indira Market, Durg after removing the shop debris.

2. The parties have been described as per their status in the suit.

3. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the defendant No. 1 Municipal Corporation, Durg owns and possesses properties at Indira Market, Durg. Defendant No. 1 Municipal Corporation Durg has given shop No. 2 to plaintiff on lease in the year 1973 to run his business in which plaintiff is running a business in the name of Usha General Stores. On 13-1-1987 defendant No. 1 held a general council meeting wherein Municipal Corporation has taken a decision to allot open space behind shop to the shop owners. 14 shop owners have submitted joint application before the defendant No. 1 for allotment of the open space behind their shop. As per general council meeting held on 13-1-1987, the said application was allowed with a condition that for ground floor premium payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- premium for first floor payment of Rs. 35,000/- and apart from these premium payments, these people have to pay Rs. 250/- and 150/- per month as rent for ground and first floor respectively. It has been further averred that in the year 1989 defendant No. 1 allotted the shop No. 13 situated at Indira Market, Durg to plaintiff and in pursuance thereof plaintiff has paid Rs. 25,000/- on 15-11-1989 to defendant No. 1 and obtained receipt thereof also.

4. It has been further contended that Defendant No. 1 has also issued memo on 7-6-1997 wherein consent from the plaintiff was obtained for construction in the open space behind Shop No. 2 from his own expenditure which has been consented by the plaintiff. This will be referred to as suit property in the foregoing paragraphs. It has been further averred that although defendant No. 1 allotted plot No. 13 situated at Indira market to the plaintiff, but the defendant No. 3 unauthorizedly took possession of the same and in order to save his illegal possession defendant No. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 2740 of 1997 before Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh wherein the following order has been passed on 10-04-2000:

“In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the eviction notice (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner has been asked to vacate the shop presently in his occupation.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that although he was promised to be allocated a shop, but without allocating the same, petitioner has been asked to vacate the shop permanently in his occupation. Mr. Pathak appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that during the pendency of the writ petition, although a shop has been allocated to him, but the said allocation is illegal. He prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order allocating the shop in his favour in accordance with law.”

5. Again, defendant No. 3 has filed writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh which was registered as W.P. No. 4619 of 2000 which was subsequently withdrawn wherein this court has passed the following order on 19-3-2013:

“By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner substantially has prayed quashment of the allotment order Annexure P3 and further direct the respondent to allot a shop from the shops which are going to be constructed at the place occupied by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed civil suit for partition of title on the ground of adverse possession, therefore, he seeks to withdraw the petition.

Consequently, t