Suit by Company--Plaintiff was required to prove that the person who filed the suit was competent and duly authorized by the company to sign the pleadings, but silence on the part of the plaintiff in this regard was fatal to the case of the plaintiff.

Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - Plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal against the judgement and decree 29.2.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad, whereby, while accepting the appeal of defendants/respondents, the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2007 passed by the trial court, partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff /appellant was dismissed in toto.

2. Facts necessary for the decision of the present second appeal are that plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction alleging therein that plaintiff company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,1956; having its Corporate office at New Delhi and Works at Palwal, District Faridabad. Telephone connections bearing nos. 53306 and 53873 were installed at Faridabad works in its name. It was further alleged that plaintiff received inflated bill dated 25.6.1996 amounting to Rs.9,07,247/- showing 632437 units/calls for the period w.e.f. 25.9.1992 to 25.6.1996 in respect of telephone connection no. 53306 without mentioning the details of STD/ISD. Vide letter dated 17.7.1996 the plaintiff was also threatened by defendant no.2 to disconnect the telephone connection by 30.7.1996 in case the payment was not made. Plaintiff company vide letter dated 24.7.1996 allegedly made representation to clarify the bill but defendant no.2 instead of giving any reply/details not only disconnected telephone connection bearing no.53306 but also disconnected other telephone no.53873 of Palwal and 291105 of Faridabad. Thereafter, the plaintiff received notice showing outstanding amounts against telephone no.53306 installed at Palwal. It was further alleged that despite disconnecting telephone no.53306 on 2.9.1996, defendant no.2 started raising bills for the period from 16.9.1996 to 15.11.1996 and inspite of repeated requests, representations and letters defendant no.2 failed to provide any details of the bill for telephone no.53306. It was further submitted that during the period from December 1992 to July 1993 the said telephone almost remained dead for which various complaints were made by the plaintiff from time to time. It was alleged that since the bills in question were wrong and illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff hence the suit.

3. Upon notice, defendants filed written statement taking preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable as provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act,1885 provide for determination of the suit matter through arbitration. On merits, it was alleged that plaintiff had illegally withheld a huge amount of Rs.11,38,196/- for the services already rendered to it. It was further alleged that bill dated 25.6.1996 for a sum of Rs.9,07,247/- was raised as per actual calls made by the plaintiff firm as it had been heavily using STD/ISD facility on the said telephone. It was further averred that due to non payment of outstanding bill amount the telephone connections were disconnected.

4. Plaintiff chose not to file replication.

5. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned trial court after hearing both sides and perusing the oral/documentary evidence available on record, vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2007 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the demand raised by the defendants vide bills dated 25.6.1996, 1.6.1996 and 1.8.1996 was wrong and illegal; and that plaintiff was liable to pay the bills of disputed period i.e. From 25.9.1992 to 15.9.1996 on the basis of average of bi-monthly bills issued by the defendants on 1.10.1996. Aggrieved against the said judgement and decree, defendants filed an appeal, which as noticed above was accepted by the learned District Judge,Faridabad vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.2.2008 and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in toto. Hence the present appeal.

6. It is submitted by