Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present revision the revisionist is challenging the order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Agra by which the application of the revisionist 65-C claiming rejection of plaint summarily has been rejected.

2. M/s Brij Leasing (P) Ltd. filed a Suit No. 812 of 2009 through its Director Sri Avin Jain against the revisionist. The plaint was duly signed and verified by Sri Avin Jain. The plaint was filed through counsel Sri N.K. Gupta, who has also signed the plaint. The suit was for specific performance. The defendants have filed written statement specifically disputing the authority of Sri Avin Jain, to sign, verify and institute the suit on the behalf of the company as no documentary proof had been filed at the time of presentation of the suit in compliance of Order 7 Rule 14 read with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”).

3. The respondents filed an interim stay application on which the revisionist filed objection about the maintainability of the stay application. On 4.1.2011, the defendants filed an application for the dismissal of the suit on the ground that no proof specifying the power to sign, verify and institute has been tendered in the present suit as per the requirement of Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The said application is marked as 65-C. The said application has been rejected by the Court below vide impugned order dated 11.1.2011. Hence, the present revision.

4. This Court has held that it is not in dispute that Sri Avin Jain is the Director of the Company. As per the provisions of the Act, the Director is authorised to do all acts on behalf of the Company unless he is specifically restrained to do any specific work. Under Section 291 of the Act, any act done by the Director will be deemed to be on behalf of the Company. It has been further held that under Order 29 Rule 1 C.P.C., the Director can sign and verify on behalf of the Company. It has been observed that as per Article 31 of the Board resolution dated 27.12.2006 Sri Avin Jain has been appointed as Director of the Company and plaint has been signed and verified by Sri Avin Jain and for the purposes of filing of suit no power of attorney and fresh resolution is required for the signature and verification and, therefore, it has been held that plaint signed and verified by Sri Avin Jain, Director of the Company, was in accordance to law.

5. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Swapnil Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the revisionist.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that under Order 29 Rule 1 C.P.C., the Director can sign and verify the suit but signing and verifying the plaint is different from filing the suit. The suit can only be filed by the person, who has been authorised to do so by the Board of Directors. In the present case, the respondents have failed to submit the resolution of the Board by which Sri Avin Jain has been authorised to file the suit. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

7. In support of the contention he relied upon the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Nibro Limited v. National Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1999 Delhi 25, Dale & Carrington Invt (P) Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212 and M/s. Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. v. General Manager, Indian Security Press and another, AIR 2000 Delhi 239.

8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

9. The Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Nibro Limited v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) and in the case of M/s. Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. v. General Manager, Indian Security Press and another (supra) has held that unless a power to institute suit is specifically conferred on a particular Director he has no authority to institute the suit on behalf of the Company. The Court has drawn