Power of Attorney – Authority Letter – Suit on behalf of company – In the absence of any evidence regarding authorisation by a company, the suit filed on behalf of such company is liable to dismissed.
Rejection of Plaint – Inherent defect – Plaint can rejected at the appellate stage when neither any such application for rejection of plaint had ever been filed nor any issue with regard to such inherent defect has been framed.

Mr. Gurvinder Singh Gill J.:- The appellant-plaintiff challenges judgment and decree dated 11.6.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar whereby dismissal of his suit for recovery by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, has been upheld.

2. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff claiming itself to be a registered company registered with Registrar of Companies, Punjab filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- against respondent-defendant Kashmir Singh. The suit was filed through Nirmal Singh, Senior Section Officer. The appellant-plaintiff asserted therein that it was running business of hire-purchase of all types of vehicles and that an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- had been paid by way of draft to the respondent-defendant for purchase of vehicle ‘Balwan-500’, but despite having received the said amount, the respondent-defendant failed to deliver the vehicle in question and despite having been asked to repay, he did not even repay the amount.

3. The respondent-defendant resisted the suit and filed written statement wherein all the material averments of the plaint including the averment made in para 1 of the plaint regarding authorization of Nirmal Singh were denied.

4. The parties were put to proof on the following issues :-

“1. Whether plaintiff has paid Rs. 2,70,000/- to the defendant for the purchase of vehicle and the defendant has filed to deliver the vehicle? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 2,70,000/- from the defendant along with interest. If so at what rate? OPP

3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

5. Whether this Court has got no territorial jurisidction to try this suit? OPD

6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing this suit? OPD

7. Relief.”

5. The plaintiff examined PW-1 Vijay Verma, Special Assistant, OBC, PW-2 Dalip Kumar, Senior Section Officer of plaintiff company and PW-3 Rohit Satyal, Assistant Manager, IDBI Bank whereas the defendant himself stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and examined DW-2 Harjit Singh.

6. The learned lower Court returned its findings on issues no. 1 and 2 against the appellant-plaintiff holding that the appellant-plaintiff has been unable to prove that an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was paid by the plaintiff-appellant to the respondent-defendant or that the defendant is proprietor of M/s Zimidar Tractors and had received the said amount for supplying the vehicle ‘Balwan500’. Issues No.3, 4, 5 and 6 were decided against the respondent-defendant. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

7. The plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge solely on the ground that the suit in question had not been filed by a duly authorized person without discussing the propriety of findings in respect of other issues. By way of the said impugned judgment and decree, the learned lower Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, dismissed the plaint as ‘rejected’ in terms of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, has submitted that the learned lower Court fell in error in rejecting his plaint at the appellate stage when neither any such application for rejection of plaint had ever been filed nor any issue as regards the suit not having been filed by an authorized person had been framed. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned lower Appellate Court by not returning any finding as regards the merits of the case and having summarily dismissed his appeal has committed an illegality whereas the evidence brought on record clearly established that the defendant had received an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- for selling the vehicle ‘Balwan-500’ but had neither delivered the vehicle nor repaid the amount and had thus usurped the amount of Rs. 2,70,000/-.

9. O