The

captioned

writ

petition

is

filed

by

the

respondent in Misc.Petition No.21/2019.

2. The present respondents herein have filed the

miscellaneous petition seeking to set aside the judgment

and

decree

dated

17.09.2018

passed

in

O.S.No.1449/2018 wherein the present respondents are

directed to quit and handover vacant possession and also

pay the arrears of rent. The said order is challenged by

3

the respondents by filing a miscellaneous petition. In

the miscellaneous proceedings, the respondent-Company

intends to lead evidence by authorizing its Manager to

lead evidence on behalf of the Company. The present

petitioner, who is the decreeholder has resisted the said

miscellaneous petition by filing objections. The present

petitioner’s contention is that the witness who is not

cited is examined on behalf of respondent-Company who

is not competent to depose on behalf of the Company. It

is also contended that the witness who is now authorised

pursuant to the Board resolution dated 03.01.2022, is

not approved by the Company Secretary in terms of law

and therefore, the present petitioner contended that he

is not competent to depose on behalf of the respondent-

Company and further objection was raised by the

petitioner that witness can depose only on behalf of

respondent

No.1-Company

and

not

on

behalf

of

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4

3. Learned Judge having examined the rival

contentions

has

allowed

the

application,

thereby

permitting

respondent-Company

to

examine

its

authorised officer to lead evidence on behalf of

respondent-Company.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Perused

the order under challenge.

5. The respondents have filed an application under

the provisions of Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151

of CPC seeking permission to permit one Mr.Suresh

C.Nathani working as a General Manager of petitioner

No.1-Company to represent and act on behalf of

petitioner

No.1-Company

and

their

Directors

i.e.

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and consequently, permit him to

lead oral evidence in support of the averments made in

the miscellaneous petition. The respondent-Company in

the affidavit has averred at para-3 that the Board has

resolved to authorize the above said witness to conduct

the case on behalf of respondent-Company.

The

5

respondents have also referred to Board resolution dated

03.01.2022. The contention of present petitioner herein

that the Board resolution authorizing the above said

witness to depose on behalf of respondent No.1-

Company cannot be extended even on behalf of

respondent

Nos.2

and

3

for

want

of

individual

authorization

is

unfounded

and

misconceived.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are admittedly the Directors.

Therefore, the authorization given under the Board

resolution would invariably authorise the witness to

depose on behalf of respondent No.1-Company as well

as on behalf of the Directors i.e. respondent No.2 and 3.

If the witness is shown to be an authorised by the

Company and if he has sworn to an affidavit indicating

that there is an authorisation, the application deserves to

be allowed. The defence set up by the petitioner that he

is not competent to depose on behalf of respondent

No.1-Company, is a matter only to be decided after he is

tested in cross-examination. Therefore, the present

6

petitioner cannot dictate as to whom respondent No.1-

Company has to examine. Whether the oral evidence of

witness would come to the aid of respondent-Company

or not is a matter of trial and whether his evidence is

defective for want of any authorization under any law is

also a matter to be considered only after conclusion of

his cross-examination. Therefore, I do not find any error

in order under challenge. Petition is dismissed. All

contentions are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LB