THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2289 & 2299 of 2023

COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the order dated 12.06.2023 in I.A.Nos.140 & 340 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2018, passed by the learned XXV-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners herein have filed two applications i.e., I.A.No.140 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2018, seeking to receive the board resolution dated 19.12.2022, and I.A.No.340 of 2023 inO.S.No.22 of 2018, seeking to permit one Md.Mansoor Ali, to defend the suit as authorized person, but they were dismissed on the ground that the document sought to receive was only authorizing letter signed by Managing Director of the Company and it does not match with the description of the document. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that Order VIII rule 1A of C.P.C, was mislead by the trial Court. Under the said provision, petition is a formality. As the petitioner No.1 is a company, a juristic person in the eyes of law and it has to be represented by someone, but the trial Court gone into hyper technical issues. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Orders of the trial Court.

4. Initially, O.S.No.22 of 2018 was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners for recovery of amount along with interest. During the pendency of the said suit, Md.Mansoor Ali, Procurement Manager, as authorized signatory of M/s.Rohit Extraction Pvt.Ltd, filed I.A.No.140 of 2023, to receive the Board Resolution dated 19.12.2022. He also filed I.A.No.340 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2018, and stated that previous authorized person namely one Kanaiah Lal Gupta, left the company, as such fresh authorization was given in his favour and thus requested the Court to permit him to defend the above suit, in the capacity of authorized signatory on behalf of the petitioner company.

5. In the counter filed by the respondent, they took several objections and contended that the residence of the Mohd.Mansoor Ali Khan, shown in the affidavit and in the cause title of the petition is not one and the same. The previous authorized person Kanaiah Lal Gupta, did not left the office. In fact, he represented in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and filed details of it and also stated that authorization letter dated 19.12.2022, was a forged document. The trial Court considering the said arguments, dismissed the applications.

6. Admittedly, it is for the company to represent by someone, as such initially, the Managing Director of M/s.Rohit Extraction Pvt.Ltd, authorized Kanaiah Lal Gupta and presently authorized one Mohd.Mansoor Ali. Accordingly, a letter was issued by the Managing Director, authorizing him to represent in this suit. In the affidavit it was mentioned that as per the Board resolution dated 19.12.2022, the authorization letter was issued by the Managing Director, authorizing the Procurement Manager to represent the suit. When once the Managing Director of the Company authorized him, Court need not dispute the said fact. Respondent herein contended that the previous person, who was authorized to represent the suit has not left the Company, he made appearance before other forum. It is for the Company to authorize any of their persons to look into the matters wherever it is necessary for them. May be they have deputed the previous authorized person to some other job at New Delhi and thus issued another authorization letter in favour of Mohd.Mansoor Ali, to represent in this case. The trial Court without appreciating the facts properly, dismissed both the applications and they are liable to be set aside.

7. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, setting aside the Order of the trial Court dated 12.06.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.140 & 340 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2018.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous p