- (1.) THE Court: The learned Master has refused to admit the plaint in this case on the ground that there is no proper affidavit as to the competency of Mr. Radhakissan More, the person, who has verified the plaint. Mr. Radhakishan more in his affidavit described himself as a Director of the plaintiff which is a limited company and he has 3urther stated that as such he is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case. Thereafter he verifies the different paragraphs of the plaint as either being true according to his knowledge or being his submissions to this Hon'ble High Court. The learned Master has rejected the plaint on the basis of the judgment of B. N. Banerjee, J. in the case of (1) Ukhara forests and Fisheries Ltd. v. Sub-Divisional land Reforms Officer, Asanusol, reported in 69 Calcutta Weekly Notes page 325. In that case Banerjee, J. , was dealing with a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India a petition made by a limited company under Article 226 of the Constitution of india was verified by one of the Directors by an affidavit in more or less identical terms, as in the present ease his Lordship considered the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules under article 226 of the Constitution of this Court as well as the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His Lordship was pleased to hold that because a juristic body like Corporation can not sign or verify under its own hand, the persons mentioned in Rule 1 of Order 29 of the code of Civil Procedure must act as it is human agents and sign and verify for itself if otherwise authorised. His lordship also relied on the provision of Chapter VII, Rule 8 of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court His lordship referred to the decision of buckland, J. , in the case of (2) International continental Caoutchoque compagnie v. Mehta and Co. , reported in 31 Calcutta Weekly Notes, Page 1030 his Lordship came to the conclusion that whenever pleading or petition meant to be filed in the Original Side of this Court or a Writ petition is verified on behalf of the Corporation the person verifying must file an affidavit of fitness or of competency along with the pleading or petition. His Lordship held that because a Director is one amongst on behalf of the company at his own individual choice. He may do so, provided he has the sanction or approval of the Board of Directors or is generally authorised by the Board to initiate, commence or defend the proceedings on behalf of the company. His Lordship in that case directed a separate affidavit to be filed.
(2.) MR. B. N. Sen, learned Counsel, for the plaintiff, submitted chat decision of the learned Master in this case was wrong. He further submitted that the observation of Banerjee, J. , in the aforesaid decision so far as the plaint in the Original Side of this court is concerned, is not quite correct in view of the decision of the Judicial committee in the case of (3) The delhi London Bank Ltd. v. Oldhaman and ors. , reported in 20 Indian Appeals 139. He also drew my attention to the decision of S. P. Mitra, J. in the case of (4) The West Bengal Board of Secon dary Education v. The Standard Book co. , reported in 70 Calcutta Weekly notes 1130.
(3.) IN the case of (2) International continental Coutchoque Compagnie v. Mehta and Co. , (supra), Buckland, J. , held that the competency of the Officer to verify the plaint must be supported by an affidavit. In that case one Narayan chandra Dutta described himself as the constituted attorney of the plaintiff Company and as such a Principal officer of the plaintiff company. He stated that he had power to sign the plaint and the warrant on behalf of the plaintiff Company and is able to depose to the facts of that case. His lordship considered Chapter VII, Rule 12 of the Rules of this Court which are insidentrical terms with rule 8 of chapter VII of the present Rules. His lordship directed fresh affidavit to be filed. His Lordship also relied on the unreported judgment of his own in suit No. 1232 of 1927 in the case of (5)Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Galji Mulji.;