Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 6 of 1967, beard on 15th November, 1971.

----O. XXIX, 'r. 1 & O. III , r. 2 (b)‑Recognised agents‑Suit by Corporation‑‑Signing and verification of pleadings‑‑Respondent Bank pursuing suit and represented even on day of passing of order‑Suit cannot in circumstances be said to have been filed without consent of Bank‑‑Non‑signing of plaint by a person authorised‑Only an irregularity and not an illegality‑‑Even if Manager pursuing suit possessed no authority on behalf of Bonk such, ‑held only ,an irregularity and suit could not be dismissed on such account.

‑‑‑ O. III', r. 2 (b)‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Contention that provisions of O. III, r. 2 (b) apply only to a case where transaction initially should have been entered into by same Branch Manager who filed suit‑Held Contrary to words of sub‑r. 2 (b) of O. III matter, under such sub‑ , rule must only be connected with business or trade carried on by that person only as deemed to be recognised agent‑Mortgage deed though executed at K but after coming into being of Branch at O it could not be said that business of mortgaged property still be carried on at x or by authorities at K and not by Branch Manager at O.

Maqbool Ahmad for Petitioner.

A. H. Najfi for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing : 15th November, 1971.

A suit under Order XXI, rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the National Bank of Pakistan, respondent No. 1, against the petitioner and the other respondents through Zia‑ul‑Haq, Branch Manager of the Bank. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the Manager of the Bank, Okara Branch, was not legally authorised to institute the suit on behalf of the Bank and the Chief Manager also had no legal authority to authorise the institution of the suit. It was also urged that the valuation of the factory shown in the plaint as Rs. '3,14,650 was incorrect. The following issues were framed :‑-----

(1) Did Muhammad Zia‑ul‑Haq, Manager, Okara Branch of the plaintiff Bank have the authority to institute the suit

(2) Was it necessary to indicate the mortgage amount due to the plaintiff Bank from defendant No. 2 in the relief, and what is the effect of the omission

On Issue No. 1 it was held that Mr. Zia‑ul‑Haq had the authority to institute the suit and issue No. 2 was found to be redundant.

While deciding issue No. 1, the learned trial Court took into consider ation the provisions of Order III, rule 2 (b) to the effect that persons carrying trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which inter alia act is to be done in matters connected with such trade or business are recognised agent. The provision under Order XXIX, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code was also noticed and it was held that in view of Delhi and London Bank Ltd. v. A. Oldham etc. (I L R 21 Cal. 60 (P C)) a Branch Manager of the Bank was the Principal Officer of the Corporation and had the implied power to sue on behalf of the Bank.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Privy Council's authority or Order XXIX, rule 1 empower the principal officer to sign or verify the plaint but not to decide whether the suit should be filed or instituted or not; and that Order III, rule 2 (b) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the mortgage deed was executed in 1952 at Karachi when the was no Okara Branch and it could not, therefore, be said that the suit was related to matter with the trade or business of Okara Branch.

None of these contentions have any substance. In the case before the Privy Council the plaint was signed and instituted by the Acting Manager who was merely a Cashier of the Bank. This was done during the absence of the Manager who had a power of attorney in his favour. The Manager holding the power of attorney executed a power of attorney in favour of the acting Manager but omitting the power to sue for debts on behalf of the Bank. In these circumstances also it was hold that the acting Manager was a principal Officer of the Corporation and the suit was properly instituted. Otherwise also the respondent the National Bank of Pakistan had been pursuing the suit and is represented even today and this shows that the suit was filed with the consent of the Bank, consistent view has been taken

in the authority of all the High Courts that non‑signing of the plaint b a person authorised is only an irregularity and not an illegality, for the reason also even if the Manager did not have any authority, that would be deemed to be an irregularity only particularly when the suit appears to have been filed with the consent of the National Bank of Pakistan.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision of Order 111, rule 2 (b) can apply only to a case where the transaction initially should have been entered into by the same branch Manager who has filed a suit, is contrary to the words of that sub‑rule. That is necessary under the sub‑rule is that the matter must be connected with the business or trade carried on by that person only who is deemed to be the recognise agent. Although initially the mortgage deed might have been executed a Karachi but after the Okara Branch came into being it could not be said that the business of this mortgaged property would still be carried on at Karachi or by the authorities at Karachi and not by the Branch Manager. The learned Civil Judge has considered all the aspects of the case by applying the correct law and there is no force in this revision petition which is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.

S. A.H. Petition 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.