( 1 ) THE appellant s Suit for the recovery of Rs. 28,326. 45 was dismissed by the trial Court (Additional District Judge), on the ground that the Suit was not instituted by a duly authorised person; no point was decided in the Suit.

( 2 ) THOUGH a number of issues were framed in the Suit, the judgment was confined on Issue No. 2-"whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorised person ? OPP".

( 3 ) ON this issue, the Court referred to the statement of Shri Ram Pershad, Public Witness. 1, who relied on the fact that he was entitled to file the suit as Secretary and General Attorney of the Company. The Court referred to the photostat copy of the power of attorney. Exhibit Public Witness. 1/3 and came to the conclusion that it purported to have been executed by the Electric Cons- truction and Equipment Company Limited under its common seal and was executed by a Director and the Chief Accountant on the basis of a resolution of the Board of Directors dated 29th June, 1973, but that resolution had not been produced. The Court held that mere execution of the power of attor- ney was not enough; the authority to execute the same on behalf of the Co