D. Sreedevi, J.

The appellant is the Addl. 5th judgment in O.S. No. 564 of 1986 of the Munsiff s Court, Idukki, and the appellant in A.S. No. 29 of 1995 of the District Court, Thodupuzha. The 1st respondent herein filed the above suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from trespassing into the A and B Schedule properties. The plaint schedule property is having a extent of 3 acres 96 cents comprised in Sy. No. 185/1 of Vagamon village. He claims title and possession over the property under the patta issued in his favour in the year 1980. The defendants have got extensive land on the western side of his property.

The plaint B schedule is the western 46 cents of A schedule property. The suit was later amended to one for recovery of possession of B Schedule property after declaring the plaintiff's title over the same and to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property.

2. The defendants filed written statement contending that the K.L.D. & M.M. Board is a Government undertaking, that the plaint B schedule property belonged to the Board, that the description of the plaint property is not correct, that the plaintiff has no property on the western side of the Kochukaruntharuvi river, which is the natural boundary on the eastern side of the properties of the Board, that the suit is bad for non joinder of parties, that being a Government Corporation, the plaintiff ought to have impleaded the Managing Director or the Secretary or the Directors, and that they have not trespassed upon the B schedule property and taken forcible possession of the same.

3. The trial court after taking evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment the defendants filed the appeal. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment this second appeal is filed.

4. The question of law for the purpose of this appeal are the following:

1. Whether a suit against a Corporation is maintainable unless the Secretary, any Director or Principal Officer of the Corporation is made a party in the suit as prescribed in O. XXIX R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

2. Whether a suit can be decreed in favour of the plaintiff solely relying on a commission report which was seriously opposed.

3. Whether a permanent prohibitory injunction can be issued even when there is a finding that there is discrepancy in the description of boundaries? and

4. Whether a second commission can be issued for the same purpose without rejecting the first commissioner's report?"

Point No.1

5. It is contended by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable as the 5th defendant is not properly represented in the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that O. XXIX R.1 provides that in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified by the Secretary or by any Director or other principal officer of the Corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. Here in this case the plaintiff has impleaded the 5th defendant who is represented by the officer in charge of Peermade Unit of the Board. This Court in Padmanabhan v. Narayanan (1963 (Vol. 1) ILR Kerala 479) held as follows:

"It is not essential that the representative of a company should appear on the array of parties to an action concerning the company. A comparison of the provisions of Orders. 29 and 32 of the Civil Procedure Code and of the several illustrative forms of Title of suits in Appendix A to the Code would show that it is enough to name the company itself as a party to the proceeding, without indicating who its physical representative is."

A Division Bench of this Court in Kalpaka Shrimp Exports v. Kerala Financial Corporation (1989 (2) KLT 18) held that the expression "Principal Officer" has not been defined in the C.P.C. If the word is to mean the most important officer, then not more than one