ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - defendants 1 and

2 aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.218 of 2022 in O.S.No.316 of 2009 by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in allowing the petition filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC to summon the Managing Director of the petitioner No.1 Company.

2. The brief facts of the case are that O.S.No.316 of 2009 was filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration that the enquiry proceedings conducted against him on the basis of the charge sheet issued by petitioner No.2 and the termination order dated 03.12.2010 issued by the Chief Finance Officer and Secretary of Defendant No.1 Company, as without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and to grant decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from conducting the enquiry proceedings against the plaintiff and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay net monthly salary from the month of September, 2008 to February, 2009 along with all other attendant service benefits and to continue to pay future net monthly salary.

3. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 10 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1 and he was cross-examined on several dates and the same was not yet completed. While the case was at that stage, the respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed I.A.No.218 of 2022 to issue witness summons to the Managing Director of the defendant No.1 Company by name Mr.Jay Soman. The petitioners herein filed their counter opposing the said application. The trial court on considering the contentions of both the learned counsel, allowed the petition issuing witness summons to the Managing Director of the petitioner No.1 Company.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred this revision.

5. Heard Smt. Manjari S.Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the averments of the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint, the appointment letter dated 15.11.1984 and the other letters placing the plaintiff on probation, order of confirmation, re-designation and subsequent promotion letters were issued by either the Secretary or the Manager / Authorized Signatory of the Company. None of the said letters were issued by the Managing Director of the Company. The charge sheet dated 29.11.2008 was issued by the petitioner No.2 - defendant No.2. The appointment of defendant No.4 as Inquiry Officer was also made by the General Manager, Finance and Secretary of the defendant No.1 Company through his letter dated 24.12.2008. The defendant No.1 Company being juridical person, could be represented by its employees by virtue of authority given to them and it was not necessary that only the Managing Director of the Company had to represent in all matters in person. The Managing Director was not in picture in person at any point of time either during the appointment of the plaintiff in defendant No.1 Company or issuance of charge sheet and also during the inquiry proceedings, which were conducted by authorized representatives, who were employees of the Company working in different capacities. The petitioner No.2 was authorized to represent the Company in the suit and the General Power of Attorney given to him was marked as Ex.B12. The petitioner No.2 was given power for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the erring employees and to take all necessary action including issuing charge sheet, show cause notices and to represent the Company before the inquiry proceedings, Courts, Tribunals, etc. The Board Resolution dated 13.03.1999 of the defendant Company evidencing powers of Mr.Jay Soman and power to sub-delegate hi