Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—Both the appeals are arising out of the order/s passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra dated 24th January, 2008 in Original Suit No. 225 of 2007 and 23 of 2007, by which the suits have been dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as the ‘C.P.C.’) upon accepting the objection/s on the part of the respondents. Out of aforesaid two orders, impugned in the present appeals, only difference is in one of such orders it has been held that the argument of the plaintiff therein has no force to say that the case is not covered under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the C.P.C. However, both the appeals are taken together for analogous hearing on informal papers, to which neither of the parties have any objection.

2. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals, contended that two suits have been filed by the appellant when one suit has been filed by the defendants in the Court below. Both of their suits are dismissed only on the ground that the power of attorney/s, as executed by the plaintiff-company in favour of one Sri Amit Garg through the Chairman & Managing Director, cannot authorize such person to institute the suit since it/those is/are not registered. Court below is apparently prejudiced which necessitates transfer of the case.

3. So far as merit of the appeals are concerned, he contended that by a power of attorney dated 26th September, 2005, the Chairman & Managing Director was authorised on behalf of the company to act in this behalf inclusive of power to institute, defend and prosecute, enforce or resist any suit or other actions and proceedings, appeals in any Court anywhere within its civil, criminal and other jurisdictions etc. inclusive of power of delegation. Clause-19 of such power of attorney speaks as follows :

“From time to time to substitute and appoint any person or persons to act under or in the place of the said Attorney in respect of all or any of the matters and to revoke every such substitution at pleasure and appoint others.”

4. At the end of such power of attorney it says as follows :

“AND the Company hereby ratifies and confirms and agrees to ratify and confirm hereafter all and whatsoever the said Attorney or his substitute or substitutes shall lawfully do or cause to be done in or about the premise by virtue of these presents and declare that these presents shall at all times be conclusively binding in favour of third parties, who have not received notice of revocation of this power.”

Said Sri Amit Garg was appointed to be true and lawful attorney of the company by virtue of and in exercise of the power given to said Chairman & Managing Director to do the needful by a further power of attorney dated 30th October, 2005. One of the important clause of such power of attorney is as follows :

“To institute, prosecute, enforce, defend, answer or oppose all actions and other legal proceedings and demands touching any of the matters aforesaid or any other matters in which the Company is now or may hereafter be interested or concerned and also to refer to arbitration, submit to judgment or become non-suited in any such action or proceedings as aforesaid and for such purpose to appear before any Judges, Magistrates, Consuls or other Officers in any Court or Consulate.”

5. Both the power of attorneys are notarized power of attorneys.

6. It appears from Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that in case of filing of power of attorney, it should have some presumptive value. Therefore, we require to test the essence of Section 85 hereunder :

“85. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney.—The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government, was so executed a