The court has the power to revise an order of a subordinate court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure if it finds that the subordinate court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos.1406 and 1696 of 1981, which contain the similar questions of law and fact. The facts in the judgement are being given from Civil Revision No.1406 of 1981.

2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for perpetual injunction for restraining the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, defendant No.1, from recovering octroi from the plaintiff in pursuance of notices dated 10th Jan., 1978, 14th Feb., 1978, 14th April, 1978 and 23rd April, 1978, and also from recovering the same in future on the ground that it was illegal and against the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act. After the conclusion of the evidence of the defendants, time was given to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal. The Municipal Committee filed an application that it was not entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as it had not reserved its right to do so. It was further stated that under the garb of the rebuttal evidence it wanted to fill in the lacunas in its evidence in affirmative, which it should not be allowed to do. The trial Court accepted the application of the Municipal Committee and held that the plaintiff-petitioner could not be given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. It has come up in revision against that order to this Court.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the Committee that the revision petition had not been filed by a duly authorised person. It has also been urged that the petitioner had not taken any decision to file a revision petition against the impugned order. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is argued that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision petition has been filed by a duly authorised person and he has also the right to take a decision. In the alternative he has submitted that the revision petition has been admitted by this Court and even if it is held that it was not filed by a duly authorised person, the Court cannot dismiss it now on this ground as it has the power to revise the impugned order under Section 115 of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) suo motu.

4. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel. The petitioner, in order to show that the revision was filed by a duly authorised person, produced an affidavit of Mr. R.D. Gharana, who has signed the Vakalatnama, showing as to how he derives his power to do so. Article 77(6) of the Memorandum of Articles of Association relates to the powers of the Directors to bring and defend actions. It reads as follows :-

"To institute, conduct, defend, compound or abandon any legal proceedings by or against the company or its officers or otherwise concerning the affairs of the Company and also to compound and allow time for payment or satisfaction of claims or demands by or against the Company."

The Board of Directors under Art.82 is competent to delegate its powers to the Standing/Executive Committee of Directors, Chairman, the Managing Director, an Executive Director and a Functional Director, subject to such terms and conditions and restrictions as it thinks fit to impose. The Board of Directors approved the delegation of powers in favour of the Chairman and Managing Director. The relevant item reads as follows :-

"To institute, conduct, defend, compound or abandon any legal proceedings by or against the company or its officer or otherwise, concerning the officers of the Company and also to compound and allow time for payment or satisfaction of any claims or demands by or against the Company."

He has also been empowered to sub-delegate the powers to subordinate officers, by the Board of Directors. The Chairman and Managing Director further delegated his powers to the General Managers of Nangal, Bhatinda and Panipat Units by virtue of office order dated 15th Dec., 1979. That power includes the power to institute any civil suit or c