ORDER

Augustine George Masih, J. -

CM-8519-CII-2020

Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

Documents, Annexures P-15 to P-25, appended alongwith the application are taken on record.

CM-8642-CII-2020 & CM-8644-CII-2020

Applications are allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

Documents, Annexures R-l to R-4, appended alongwith the application are taken on record. Exemption is also granted from filing certified/typed copies of said documents.

CR-2217-2020

This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, impugning the order dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala in a civil suit, whereby application preferred by Satwant Singh, petitioner No.1 herein (defendant No.2 in the civil suit) under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC dated 12.12.2000, seeking permission to file written statement on behalf of Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Limited-petitioner No.2 (defendant No.1 in the civil suit) (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), has been dismissed. Accordingly, prayer has been made by the petitioners to set-aside the said order being against law and facts of the case and principles of natural justice and for allowing the application dated 12.12.2000.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure P-l) is not sustainable as the Court below has not appreciated the pleadings in the civil suit as pleaded by the petitioners in correct manner and has proceeded to pass the order on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is asserted that in the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC filed by petitioner No.1, specific objection was raised to the resolution purportedly passed by the Board of Directors, authorizing S.Ajit Singh-respondent No.2 to file written statement on behalf of petitioner No.2-Company. During the course of arguments, the Court permitted respondent No.1 to place on record and rely upon certain documents, which were neither previously filed nor do they find mentioned in the suit. There was no occasion for the petitioners to carry out any admissions/denials in respect of such additional documents, which have been erroneously taken into consideration as admitted documents by the trial Court. The issues, which have been raised in the application, have not been adjudicated upon. It is asserted that without there being any adjudication on the issue with regard to representing petitioner No.2-Company, the application of petitioner No.1 for permission to file written statement on behalf of petitioner No.2 has been decided. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court has finally determined the rights of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 relating to filing of the written statement for and on behalf of the Company. This has been done without application of mind and appreciation of relevant circumstances. It has been specifically urged in the written statement that there is no resolution or authority placed on record authorizing respondent No.2 to represent petitioner No.2 Company. In view of the dispute and manifest variation in facts, which were ex facie evident from the facts and circumstances of the case, the authority to represent petitioner No.2 was clearly a triable issue and without framing the issue to this effect, rejection of the application of the petitioners summarily is unsustainable. He also asserts that there was no deliberate delay on the part of petitioner No.1 in filing the application dated 12.12.2000 as is being said that two years have been taken by petitioner No.1 to file the said application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. This, he asserts, is in the light of the fact that there has been admissions on the part of the parties to enter into a settlement for which talks were under process so that the dispute amongst the family could be resolved. It is in this process that the delay has occurred. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that a