1. The defendants in O.S. No. 42 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam have filed this revision challenging the finding entered on additional issue No.3 in the above suit, by the learned Additional Sub Judge. Suit was one for realisation of money filed by the respondent, a subsidiary Bank under the State Bank of India. Suit was instituted on behalf of the plaintiff Bank by its Branch Manager in whose branch, presumably, the banking transaction giving rise to the suit claim with the defendants had taken place. In the written statement, among other contentions, the defendants had disputed the competency of the above said Branch Manager to institute a suit in the name of the Bank. The order impugned in the revision would also show that on an application moved by them as I.A.No. 3253 of 2009, an additional issue was cast in the suit as “Whether the person who instituted the suit is competent to institute the suit in the name of the plaintiff Banks?”. Plaintiff Bank produced copy of the Subsidiary Banks General Regulations, 1959, and a gazette notification dated 04.05.1996 to show that the Branch Manager, who instituted the suit in the name of the Bank, has full competency to do so. The learned Additional Sub Judge, after hearing both sides and looking into the aforesaid materials produced by the Plaintiff Bank, found that the challenge raised questioning the competency of the Branch Manager to institute the suit in the name of the Bank, on which additional issue was raised, is devoid of any merit and answered such issue accordingly. The finding entered on the additional issue cast in the suit is challenged in this revision by the defendants as improper, illegal and unsustainable under law.

2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Rule 55 of the Subsidiary Banks General Regulations, 1959 and also the gazette notification dated 04.05.1996, a copy of which Has been produced for perusal, does not empower the Branch Manager of a bank to sue in the name of the Bank and unless there is specific authority conferred on such Branch Manager to institute the suit on behalf of the Bank by virtue of a notification published thereof or authorization recognizable under law, he is incompetent to institute the suit and the court below has gone wrong in entering a finding on additional issue No. 3 against the defendants, is the submission of their counsel. Reliance is placed by the counsel on NibroLtd.v. national Insurance Company Ltd (1991 (70) Company cases 388) to contend that the question of authority to institute a suit on behalf of the company is not a technical matter and unless a power to institute a suit is specifically conferred on the Branch Manager he has no authority to institute the suit in the name of the bank. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners to assail the finding entered by the learned Sub Judge over the question of competency of the Branch Manager of the plaintiff Bank repelling the objections raised thereto by the defendants. This Court in South India Corporation (Agencies) Private Ltd. Madras V. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Cochin (AIR 1970 Kerala 138) has held in unmistakable terms that an objection raised questioning the competency of an officer of the company to sue is a purely a technical one and even if the officer, who sued on behalf of the company is not a principal officer of the company, a mere authorization of the company was enough to make his signatures subscribed in the plaint sufficient enough to show his competency to institute the suit on behalf of the company. Even assuming that the Branch Manager, who instituted the suit did not have specific authorization, if a technical objection is raised questioning his competency, a mere authorization from the Bank would remove and negate such objection. The Apex Court has held in United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others (AIR 1997 SC 3) that in suits instituted or d