The provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 and Order 29, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code are not mutually exclusive and a plaint in a suit by a company can be signed and verified either by a Secretary or a Director or other principal officer under Order 29, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, or by any person duly authorized by the company under Order 6, Rule 14.

1. - This is an appeal by defendant No. 1,Ramkumar Inani son of Shri Laxmi Narayan against the judgment and preliminary decree dated April 21, 1969, posted by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara in'favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in a 'suit' for rendition of accounts. Respondent No. 2, who was defendant No. 2 is a proforma party in this appeal.

2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff M/s. Ramkumar Morarka & Sons Private Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the 'plaintiff- company') through its Muktiar khas Banwarilal "son 'of jaidev Nathuramka in the court of District Judge, Bhilwara October 20, 1964. It was averred by the plaintiff-company that it is registered under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Seksaria Chambers, 139, Medows Street, Fort, Bombay; that a Khandsari Factory was run by the plaintiff company known as 'India Khandsarl Work's (for short 'the factory'). It was further stated in the plaint that the company's representative Ramrichhpal Patodia (for Short R.R. Patodia') and defendant No. 1 Ramkumar agreed between themselves that the latter would run the factory on behalf of the plaintiff-company and the plaintiff-company would supply, money as and when required and that in case the plaintiff company runs in profit, it would pay to him-such remuneration as it thinks fit. In pursuance of this agreement, the charge of the factory was handed over to defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff -company on July 15, 1962 and a list 'A' was prepared of the articles which were delivered to him. The amount of Rs. 13993.68 was who paid by the plaintiff-company to defendant No. 1 as asked by him from time to time, the details of which have been mentioned in list 'B' which was submitted with the plaint. The factory remained under the control and management of defendant No. 1 from July 16, 1962 to August 13, 1963. In para 17 of the plaint it was alleged that the entire accounts of income and expenditure of the plaintiff-company were kept by the defendants, that in those accounts considerable amount was debited in the nature of defendant No. 1 and that the defendants had sent certain accounts, trial balance and letters from time to time. In the plaint, the plaintiff-company has averred certain transactions relating to the business. The plaintiff company has also alleged that the defendants did not keep the accounts properly and so possession of the factory was taken from them by Banwari Lal on August 13, 1963. Hence, the suit was instituted for the rendition of accounts. It was prayed that a decree for Rs. 24083.08 or the amount that may be found due from the defendants and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till, realisation of the amount, may be passed in. favour of the plaintiff-company.

3. Both the defendants filed a joint written statement on January 18, 1965 raising several pleas. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-company is not registered one and the suit brought by Banwarilal is not maintainable. It was denied that defendant No 1 was an agent of the plaintiff-company. The principal defence taken in the written statement was that the factory was owned by Shri Ramrichhpal Jalan (for short R.R. Jalan) and defendant No 1 was his partner and that he came in possession of the factory, through him R.R. Jalan): According to the defendants, the owner of the factory forcibly took the possession of the factory, stores, machinery, account book etc., which were in the factory and that stock was not deficit at that time. It was stated that the defendant had made correct entries in the accounts books of the factory and that they did not keep any amount of the factory. R.R. Patodia was representative of R.R. Jalan and, the former, had entered into an agreement with defendant No 1 on behalf of R.R. Jalan. The defendants went on to state that R.R. Patodia did not have any negotiations or: settlement in his capacity as, a representative of the, plaintiff-company. The defendan