Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 42 of 1966, decided on 24th February, 1966.

-----O. III r. 2‑Institution of suit‑Recognised agent‑Question whether a person did or did not have authority to file suit‑Can effectively be challenged only by Principal‑Principal in spite of objection taken continuing to recognise authority of agent to institute suit, such conduct, held, amounts to ratification and suit would still be a validly instituted suit.

‑ O. III, r. 2 & O. XIV, r. 1‑‑Recognised agent‑Framing of preliminary issue‑Courts should desist from promptly framing preliminary issue on questions such as whether person filing suit a recognised agent or not‑Such course leads to delay in decision of cases‑Pleas of such kind, held, may be tried alongwith whole suit.

‑ O. III, r. 2‑Institution of suit‑Authority to prosecute‑Contention that management of Bank B having been taken over by Bank N autho rity to prosecute suit could be given by Bank N only‑Authority given by Bank B; held, shall continue unless Bank N cancels same or declares same to be not binding.

‑‑‑ O. III, r. 2‑Suit‑Limitation‑Contention that power of attorney baying been put into‑court after expiry of period of limitation suit not maintainable‑Held, Authority existing to institute suit, fact of power having been filed after limitation would make no difference to question of limitation.‑[Limitation‑Power of attorney].

Khalilur Rehman for Petitioner.

This is a revision under section 115, C. P. C. challenging the order of the Civil Judge III Class, Lahore ; who dismissed the preliminary objection taken by the defendants to the maintainability of the suit. The short point urged before me by the learned counsel is that even though there was a power of attorney produced in the case it had not been proved that those who executed the power of attorney had the power to do so under the Articles of the Company and the Memorandum of Association. The power of attorney according to the learned counsel must have been signed by some of the directors. Well if that is so I am unable to see how the objection as to the validity of the power of attorney can be sustained. It, is, however, suggested that in the Articles of Association of some companies it is only by the resolu tion of the Board that such a power to institute suits can be given. I have really never seen any force in those objections which are frequently taken in such suits by banks in this part of the country. In my opinion the fact that the person did or did not have authority can effectively be challenged only by the principal. If in spite of the objections taken the principal' continues to recognise the authority of the agent to institute the suit I am inclined to think that this would amount to a ratification and the suit would still be a validly instituted suit. I am further clearly of the opinion that it is wrong on the part of the Court below to promptly frame a preliminary issue on such questions and then go on with it for a couple of years before the main claim comes to be considered. Such a practice is to be deprecated, If the plea of the kind as taken in this case is raised it may be tried along with the whole suit. I say so because my impress is that these pleas are taken recklessly and most of the time the idea is to delay the decision of the suit. These delays are detrimental to a healthy commercial practice.

The second point urged was that in so far as the management of this banks had been taken over by the National Bank the authority had to be issued by the National Bank or there should have been a special recognition of that authority. I do not agree. The authority given by the Bank of Bahawalpur shall continue unless the bank which has taken over the management cancels it or declares it to be not binding.

The third, point is that this power of attorney was put into Court after the period of limitation. This point again is devoid of any force. It there was authority to institute the suit the fact that the power was filed after the limitation would certainly make no difference to the question of limitation.

S. A. H. Petition summarily dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.