1975 Supreme(Mad) 251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. Ramaprasada Rao and S. Ratnavel Pandian, JJ.
M.C.S. Rajan and Company .....Appellant(s)
Versus
National Nail Industries, Tiruchirapalli and others .....Respondent(s)
Appeal No. 659 of 1971.
Decided On : 03 April 1975
N.S. Raghavan, for Appellant.
T.R. Rajagopalan, (Amicus Curiae), for Respondents.
Suit filed for recovery of money due held maintainable.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 6, rule 14-Indian Contract Act, 1872-Sections 196 and 199-Maintainability of the suit for recovery of money due-Objection raised due to signing of the plaint by the manager of plaintiff-Held, suit maintainable due to production of Power of attorney produced at the time of trial.
2. The main question and controversy touched upon by the defendants in their defence was that the suit as framed and as presented by Mr. Narayanan as the Manager of the proprietary concern was not maintainable.
The following issues were framed for trial.
(1) What is the agreed price of goods?
(2) Whether the statement of account of plaintiff is correct?
(3) Whether the. plaintiff is entitled to interest?
(4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reasons stated in para. 10 of the written statement?
(6) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?
(7) To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
3. On all the issues excepting issue No. 5, the learned trial Judge agreed with the plaintiff. But, on issue No. 5, he was of the view that as the authority which enabled Narayanan to sign the plaint and verify the pleadings was not produced at or about the time when the suit was filed by him, the presentation of the plaint is irregular and the acceptance of the same ought not to have been done and hence, no decree can be passed, even though there is no real defence on the merits of the case. The learned trial Judge was of the view that as Padmanabhan has not signed the plaint and as Narayanan did not produce the power of attorney on the day when he signed the pleading, and as Exhibit A-20, the power of attorney, under which the act of Narayanan was ratified by Padmanabhan was produced late and in particular at the time of trial, the learned trial Judge, while agreeing with the plaintiff on all the other issues, found against it on issue No. 5 and held that the suit was not maintainable. It is as against this portion of the judgment which has, of course, resulted in the dismissal of the suit that the appeal has been filed. In our view, this is a case in which the sole proprietary concern whose proprietor was Padmanabhan and whose name also has been disclosed as such is the plaintiff. One way by which a sole proprietor who has a trading style can file a suit in respect of his commercial activity is by signirg the plaint himself as prop