The main legal point established in the judgment is that technical objections should not defeat a just cause, and the ratification authorizing the officer can be expressed or implied, especially in cases involving public interest.

JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J. - This order of mine shall dispose of one appeal bearing RSA No.2940 of 1998 titled as "M/s Rattan Trading Company and another V/s The Batala Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. and two revision petitions bearing CR No.3877 of 1999 titled as "The Batala Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. V/s M/s Rattan Trading Company and Others" and CR No.3253 of 1999 titled as "The Batala Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. V/s M/s Rattan Trading Company and Others".

2. The point involved in the present regular second appeal and two revisions petition is whether suit filed for recovery by the respondentplaintiff through Manager being Principal Officer was maintainable or not and the subsequent suits filed by the same very person could be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and against the order of stay, two revisions petitions bearing No.3877 and 3253 of 1999 at the behest of the plaintiff have been filed.

3. Filing of the suit for recovery of Rs. 31,500/- by the respondentplaintiff against the appellants-defendants through Harbhajan Singh, Manager and other two suits for recovery of balance period as well as for possession on account of fact that the respondent-plaintiff had leased out the rice seller to the appellant-defendants for a particular period and the defendants had not paid use and occupation charges or handed over the possession, are not in dispute. The only objection taken before the Courts below and this Court is whether the suit filed by the Branch Manager, who had the authority to institute the suit on behalf of the cooperative society in the absence of any resolution or notification, would be maintainable as per Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Mr. Rajesh Garg, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Nimrata Shergill, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in RSA No.2940 of 1988 and for the respondents in CR Nos.3877 and 3253 of 1999, in support of the memorandum of appeal, relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in '' Food Corporation of India V/s Dhani Ram , (2004) 3 RCR(Civil) 635", where District Manager had filed the suit on behalf of the Food Corporation of India on the authorization of Senior Regional Manager and on going through the evidence brought on record, it was found that Senior Regional Manager did not have any power to further delegate and appoint District Manager to file the suit, much less, depose and the suit was liable to be dismissed and on similar lines referred to in para No.11 of '' Garib Chand V/s Municipal Committee, Budhlada , (1979) 2 ILR(P&H) 478" as well as '' Punjab Agricultural University and Others V/s M/s Walia Bros , (1968) 2 ILR(P&H) 250".

5. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Chopra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ankit Midha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in RSA No.2940 of 1988 and for the petitioners in CR Nos.3877 and 3253 of 1999, relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in '' United Bank of India V/s Naresh Kumar and Others , (1996) 6 SCC 660", to contend that in suit filed by the Public Corporation like Bank including the societies, whether, on mere technicality, the public interest can be defeated or not, for, as per the provisions of Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was held that the ratification can be expressed or implied, even if Principal Officer, who instituted the suit, did not have the power at the relevant point of time. On similar lines of Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in '' Kingston Computers IP Ltd. V/s State Bank of Travancore , (2008) 17 RCR(Civil) 239", wherein, while referring to para Nos.21 to 26, it was urged that Secretary, Director or a Principal Officer of a Company to institute suit on that behalf would be treated as duly authorized person. He further relied upon the ratio decidendi culled out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in '' Daman Singh a