( 1 ) THIS APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED on JANUARY 31, 2003 BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT judge IN SUIT NO. 121/2000 DISMISSING THE SAID SUIT.

( 2 ) THE SUIT WAS INSTITUTED BY THE APPELLANT AS THE plaintiff AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS. IN THE cause TITLE OF THE PLAINT, THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF described ITSELF AS FOLLOWS:- "m/s. MIRAJ MARKETING CORPORATION (REGD) 206, IIND FLOOR, MIRAJ PLAZA, EAST PATEL NAGAR, DELHI-8" [through ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE] MR. AMITABH SHARMA the ORIGINAL PLAINT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS AMENDED subsequently AND IN THE AMENDED PLAINT ALSO THE APPELLANT- plaintiff DESCRIBED ITSELF AS ABOVE. IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF the PLAINT THE PLAINTIFF STATED THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS A proprietorship FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THE aforementioned ADDRESS. THE SAID SUIT WAS INSTITUTED BY the APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF SEEKING FOR A DECREE FOR RECOVERY of RS. 4,34,600/- ALONG WITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE interest FROM THE DATE OF INSTITUTION OF THE SUIT TILL realisation. 3. IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS, certain PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED. ONE OF THE said OBJECTIONS WAS THAT THE PLAINT HAD NOT BEEN SIGNED or VERIFIED, OR THE SUIT HAD NOT BEEN FILED BY A DULY authorised PERSON AND THAT MR. AMITABH SHARMA WAS NEITHER the PROPRIETOR NOR A DULY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF the PLAINTIFF FIRM AND AS SUCH MR. AMITABH SHARMA WAS NOT competent OR EMPOWERED TO FILE, SIGN AND VERIFY THE plaint AND HENCE THE SAID SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS liable TO BE DISMISSED ON THE SAID GROUND. 4. ON THE PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES, THE TRIAL COURT FRAMED the FOLLOWING ISSUES:- 1. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE SUIT amount? OPD. 2. WHETHER THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IS BARRED BY section 69 (2) OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT? OPD. 3. WHETHER THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IS BARRED U/o 13 10 CPC? OPD. 4. WHETHER THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT SIGNED and VERIFIED BY A DULY AUTHORISED PERSON? OPD. 5. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE interest, IF SO, AT WHAT RATE? OPP. 6. RELIEF. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF TRIAL THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF examined SHRI AJAY GOGIA AS PW-1 AND FILED HIS examination-IN-CHIEF BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT. THE appellant-PLAINTIFF ALSO EXAMINED SHRI A. K. PANDEY AS PW- 2 AND ALSO FILED HIS EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF THROUGH AN affidavit WHEREAS THE RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS EXAMINED mr. SANJEEV KAPIL AS DW-1. 6. IN THE VERIFICATION OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY WAY OF evidence FILED BY SHRI AJAY GOGIA AS PW-1, IT WAS STATED thus:-

"verification: VERIFIED ON THIS 30th DAY OF JULY 2002, THAT THE contents OF THE ABOVE AFFIDAVIT IS (ARE) TRUE AND CORRECT to THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND NOTHING MATERIAL HAS BEEN concealed THEREFROM. "similar VERIFICATION WAS ALSO DONE IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED by WAY OF EVIDENCE BY SHRI A. K. PANDEY AS FOLLOWS:-

"verification: VERIFIED ON THIS 30th DAY OF JULY 2002 THAT THE contents OF THE ABOVE AFFIDAVIT IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO the BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND NOTHING MATERIAL HAS BEEN concealed THEREFROM. "

( 3 ) THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE THEREAFTER HEARD the ARGUMENTS IN THE SAID SUIT AND BY JUDGMENT AND ORDER passed ON JANUARY 31, 2003 HE DISMISSED THE SAID SUIT filed BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE recorded BY HIM AS AGAINST ISSUES NO. 1, 4 AND 5. ISSUES NO. 1 AND 5 WERE TAKEN UP FIRST. WHILE discussing THE SAID ISSUES, THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT referred TO THE AFORESAID VERIFICATIONS APPENDED TO THE affidavits BY WAY OF EVIDENCE BY THE WITNESSES OF THE plaintiff. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID VERIFICATIONS IN both THE AFFIDAVITS IT WAS HELD THAT IT COULD NOT BE SAID that THE VERIFICATION OF THE TWO AFFIDAVITS WAS IN compliance WITH ORDER 19 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THE TRIAL COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE AFFIDAVITS/evidence filed BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROPER AND LEGAL EVIDENCE and NO RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED SAFELY ON THEM AND, therefore, THE SAID AFFIDAVIT COULD NOT BE READ IN evidence. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT AS THE