Paramjeet Singh, J. - (1.) INSTANT civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), SAS, Nagar, Mohali whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code) filed by the petitioner -defendant has been dismissed. Parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status in civil suit.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the plaintiff through Major Surinder Singh filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of the contract dated 16.05.2008. Upon notice, the defendant put in appearance and filed written statement. During pendency of the suit, the defendant filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of plaint which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.11.2012. Hence, this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit. In fact, there was no contract between the parties. As such, there is no privity of contract between the parties. There is no resolution passed by the respondent authorizing Major Surinder Singh through whom the present suit has been filed as is required under Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short "the Act"). The suit filed by a person, who is not authorized by company is not maintainable. The learned senior counsel has made reference to Section 632 of the Act and relied upon State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computers India Private Limited : (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 524 and M/s. Nibro Limited v. National Insurance Co: Ltd.2 : AIR 1991 Delhi 25. The learned senior counsel has further contended that the plaint is liable to be rejected as by a clever drafting, an illusory cause of action has been created and it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the parties under Order X of the Code. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman v. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee3 : 2012 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 811. The learned senior counsel has further contended that on various occasions, directions were issued to the plaintiff to produce original document i.e. agreement in question, therefore, under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code, such document cannot be received in evidence and in absence of compliance of the aforesaid provisions, suit is not maintainable. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Som Parkash Bansal v. Managing Committee, Hindu Higher Secondary School, Kaithal and another 4 : 2003 (1) R.C.R. (Civil)270.;