Point of Law : Only officers appointed by Government under Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 can sign and verify papers in legal proceeding on behalf of Government and this power cannot be delegated to any other officers, not appointed by Government.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) IIIrd, Court No. 30, Saharanpur whereby application Paper no. 44-C-2 filed by petitioner in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2020 arising out of Original Suit No. 141 of 1982 has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Company duly registered under the provision of Companies Act, 1956. The said Company earlier filed Original Suit No. 141 of 1982 against the Union of India/Railways for permanent prohibitory injunction in which written statement has also been filed. The Trial Court decreed the aforesaid suit vide exparte judgment and decree dated 21.04.1987. He further submitted that after gap of 33 years, recall application was filed by respondents on 27.10.2020 in which petitioner has also filed objection. One separate application 44-C-2 has also been filed raising objection under Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 and has taken specific plea that in light of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908, only persons appointed by Central Government can file application alongwith Vakalatnama and affidavit. The said application was rejected vide impugned order dated 12.11.2021. He further submitted that Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 clearly states that in any suit by or against the Government, the plaint or written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government may, by general or special Order, appoint in this behalf. It is also stated that it shall be verified by any person, whom the Government may so appoint and who is acquainted with the facts of the case. He next submitted that persons appointed can sign the plaint and verify the same. He next submitted that respondents have also filed Notification dated 04.06.1992 issued by Railway Board, which was earlier filed in objection Paper No. 42-C-2, by which at serial No. 30 of the Schedule, has appointed the Senior Divisional Engineer to represent the Railway Administration to sign the papers and also verify the same on its behalf. In the present case, only Vakalatnama was signed by Senior Divisional Engineer, whereas application was filed under the signature of Assistant Divisional Engineer and also verified by Senior Section Engineer, therefore, such application cannot be entertained. He next submitted that without considering the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908, the application has been rejected.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/S C. Lyall and Company Vs. Union of India and others, ILR 1973 Delhi 905 which deals with similar issue, where it was clarified that person/persons appointed can only represent the Government in all proceedings of the case. He also placed reliance upon a judgment of J. & K. High Court in the case of State of J.& K. and another Vs. Gh. Nabi Bhat and others, AIR 2003 NOC 555 (J.&K.). In this matter, again issue was as to whether Under Secretary can represent the Government or not and relying upon the notification dated 04.06.1992, the Court held that he can also file the case as Under Secretary is also notified in notification dated 04.06.1992.

5. Lastly, he submitted that in the present case, vide notification dated 04.06.1992 appointment is given to Senior Divisional Engineer, no other officers can file the application or verify the papers. Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the Senior Divisional Engineer is appointed by Railway Board, which is Government in light of Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908, he can delegate the power to some other officers also to verify the facts of the case. In the present case, notification was is