Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THE appeal against the order of the trial Court was filed by the company through its authorized representative. The appeal was entertained. However, at some stage, it was dismissed in default of appearance of the counsel. The restoration application was filed within a week by the company. The application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.3.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pathankot. The words of the appellate Court in para. 3 and 4 are reproduced: - 3. After considering the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and after going through the file, it reveals that the present application has been filed by the applicants who is company bearing signatures of Ajay Bhatia. In the title the applicant No. 1 is M/s. Alkem Laboratories through its Managing Director. The affidavit with the application is filed by one Ajay Bhatia, H.R.M. Alkem Labs stating himself being an authorized signatory on behalf of the appellant. The application has been filed through Sh. Ashok Soodan, Advocate, Pathankot on 18.9.13. 4. Summoned filed shows that power of attorney of Sh. Ashok Soodan, Advocate and Manjit Singh Chinna, Advocate is on behalf of the applicant, meaning thereby, on 13.9.13 the appeal was dismissed in default and the present counsel was representing the applicant. He has the knowledge regarding the dismissal of the application/appeal on 13.9.12. The applicant has not filed any appointment letter issued by the company to show that he is employee of the said company nor there is any resolution of the company whereby Sh. Ajay Bhatia, Sr. Manager has been authorized to file the present application before the court. In the absence of any document showing the concern of said Sh. Ajay Bhatia with the company and resolution of company for authorizing Sh. Ajay Bhatia to engage counsel, sign vakalatnama, file application for restoration and affidavit, the application in hand is not filed by the competent person. There is also no explanation on the file as to why from 13.9.13 to 18.9.13 the counsel has not communicated to the applicant company.
(2.) THE reasons assigned by the learned Appellate Court are not proper and serve no useful end in terms of doing justice to the parties. The reasoning is also too technical to be supported. The appeal was filed by the Company in the prescribed manner. The application for restoration of the appeal cannot be thrown out if it had an affidavit of one Ajay Bhatia in support of the restoration application. Ajay Bhatia was an employee of the company. The resolution was placed on the file of the appellate Court and has been produced herein as Annexure P -8. I have no doubt that the impugned order should not be allowed to stand. This petition is allowed and the order is set aside and the appeal is restored on the board of the appellate Court and the same be heard and decided on merits.
(3.) IN view of this order, the execution proceedings pending for tomorrow as stated by the learned counsel shall await final decision in the appeal.;