YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) THE present suit was filed on behalf of the National and Grindlays Bank Limited, a banking company incorporated in England, having its branch in Connaught Place, New Delhi, against the defendants for recovery of money on the basis of hypothecation of machinery etc. , mortgapge, guarantees and indemnity and for other reliefs.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed through Mr. John Herbert Keeble, Manager, at that time of the Connaht Place Branch, who described himself as a duly constituted attorney and Principal Officer of the plaintiff-Bank competent to sign the plaint and to institute the suit and also being conversant with the facts of the case. The plaint was signed and verified by the said Manager as constituted attorney, and the suit was filed through Advocates in this Court.

( 3 ) LATER on, the plaint was amended as the name of the plaintiff- Bank had been changed into Grindlays Bank instead of National and Grindlays Bank.

( 4 ) IN the amended written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3, a plea was taken that, "it is not admitted that the plaint has been properly signed and the suit has been instituted by a competent person and under proper authority. It is denied that Mr. John Herbert Keeble is a duly constituted attorney, entitled to institute the suit or sign the plaint. It is submitted that no suit could be instituted without a special Resolution of the Board of the Directors of the plaintiff company".

( 5 ) IN view of the plea one of the issues framed by this Court on 19th May, 1975 was as under :

"whether the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised party ? O. P. P. "

( 6 ) THE plaintiff had earlier filed a list of documents and also filed photostat copy of the original power of attorney in favour of the aforesaid Mr. John Herbert Keeble dated 7th November 1962 executed in his favour by the plaintiff-Bank. This photostat copy of the power of attorney which had been granted by the National and Grindlays Bank Limited to John Herbert Keeble showed that it was executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, namely, John Martyn Dimond of the City of London. In spite of it being a photostat copy, at the stage of admission and/or denial the defendants denied the document. The plaintiff has accordingly filed the present application under Order XIV rule 5, Order VI rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for directing the defendants to give specific and definite particulars of their objections to para 1 of the plaint, which is the relevant para, and also to recast issue No. 1 in such a way that the burden of proving the lack of authority to institute the suit is on the defendants.

( 7 ) THE application has been opposed on behalf of the defendants.

( 8 ) AT the time of hearing, Mr. Mahinder Narain, learned counsel for the plaintiff, produced before me the original Power of Attorney. This document shows that it is a power of attorney in favour of John Herbert Keeble executed on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank. It also benrs the seal of the plaintiff-Bank as well as necessary authentication of due execution by the aforesaid Notary Public. It also bears the seal of the Notary Public. The authentication by the aforesaid Notary Public reads as under:

"i JOHNMARTYN DIMOND, of the City of London Notary Public duly admitted and sworn practising in the said City Do hereby Certify and Attest that I was this day present at the registered Office of NATIONAL AND GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED situate at No. 26 Bishopsgate in the said City with the Right Honourable EDWARD FRANCIS BARON TWINING, G. C. M. G. M. B. E. , a Director and HENRY DOUGLAS CAYLEY The Deputy General Manager of the said Bank and did see the seal of the said Bank affixed to or impressed on the foregoing Power of Attorney and that the Seal so affixed is the genuine Seal of the said Bank. And that the signatures "twining" and "h. D. Cayley" severally and respectively subscribed at food of the foregoing power

Click Here to Read the rest of this document