KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. By this appeal filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2003 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge whereby the suit for recovery of permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the appellant against the respondent was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present case are that the respondent was an employee in the appellant company and submitted his resignation letter on 3.10.99 and requested to be released from the employment w.e.f 1.1.2000. The appellant company in a letter dated 4.12.1999 informed the respondent that his services would be relieved subject to certain conditions specified therein among which one was the re-payment of loan advanced by the appellant company to the respondent. Consequently, the respondent issued a post dated cheque dated 31.12.1999 for Rs. 1,36,000/-which got dishonoured and hence the appellant company filed a suit for recovery of the said amount which vide judgment and decree dated 24.2.2003 was dismissed. The learned trial court besides dismissing the suit of the appellant on merits also held that Sh. K.K Sen , who had filed the said suit was not authorized to do so. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that the appellant failed to prove the authority of Mr. K.K. Sen to sign, file and verify the plaint on behalf of the appellant company. Counsel further submitted that the certified copy of the Board Resolution in favour of Mr. S. Ramanathan was duly proved on record, the same being a part and parcel of the document proved on record as Ex. PW 2/1. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the authority of Mr. K.K. Sen was never challenged in his cross-examination nor even any suggestion was given by the respondent to challenge the authority of Mr. S. Ramanathan, therefore the findings given by the Ld. Trial Court on the issue Nos. 2 are ex-facie illegal and perverse. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the suit of the appellant was dismissed on a technical ground and therefore the ld. Trial Court has not done substantive justice to the claim set up by the appellant against the respondent.

4. In support of her arguments, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors (1996) 6 SCC 660.

5. On merits of the case, the counsel for the appellant, contended that the appellant has fully proved its case by proving on record the dishonoured cheque Ex. PW 1/C-1 for Rs.1,36,000/-issued by the defendant himself towards the outstanding dues of the appellant and the resignation letter dated 3.10.1999 proved on record as Ex. PW 1/1, but ignoring the said documentary evidence the ld.

Trial Court has given more weightage to the uncorroborated evidence of the respondent.

6. I have heard counsel for the appellant at considerable length and gone through the records. From the respondent side none appeared.

7. Before adverting to deal with the merits of the case, let me first examine the findings of the ld. Trial Court on issue No.2. Besides other issues on merits of the case, the following issue on the competence and authority of Mr. K.K. Sen was framed by the Ld. Trial Court. Issue No. 2:-

“Whether the plaintiff has authorized Sh. K.K. Sen to file the present suit, if so, whether the suit has been properly signed & verified? OPP.

8. The onus of proving the said issue was on the appellant and to prove the same Sh. K.K. Sen in his evidence proved a letter dated 26.05.2000 whereby Mr. S. Ramanathan, General Manager (Finance) had appointed Mr. K.K. Sen to represent the appellant company in legal proceedings to be instituted against the respondent and to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the company. The ld. Trial Court has decided th