Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) THE present appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2008 passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2007 passed by the trial Court has been allowed and as a result the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of Rs. 1,42,570.00 along with interest has been dismissed. M/s J.K. Corporation Limited through Shri S.K. Raina filed the suit for recovery of aforesaid amount in regard to outstanding balance pertaining to supplies of cement made by the plaintiff to M/s Guru Nanak Traders, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but the appeal preferred by the defendants/respondents was allowed by the first appellate Court primarily on the ground that Shri S.K. Raina was not competent to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff company.
(2.) COUNSEL for the parties have made submissions on the following substantial question of law: - "Whether the findings of the first appellate Court holding that Shri S.K. Raina is not competent to file the suit are perverse and liable to be set aside - Counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff company passed resolution dated 24.06.1999 Ex.P1 and in view of that resolution Hari Shankar Singhania, Chairman and Managing Director along with others, referred to in the resolution, were authorized to execute general or special power of attorney under the common seal of the company in favour of such officers/employees of the Company or others as they may deem necessary to act in the name and on behalf of the company. It is further argued that in pursuance of the power bestowed vide resolution Ex P -1, power of attorney Ex.P -2 was executed in favour of Shri S.K. Rania under the common seal of the Company and, therefore, the learned appellate Court grossly erred in holding that Shri S.K. Raina was not competent to file the suit on behalf of the company.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents has supported the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court with the submissions that the plaintiff/appellant failed to adduce evidence that Shri S.K. Raina was competent to institute the suit. It is further argued that photocopy of power of attorney was exhibited in view of affidavit of Shri S.K. Raina prepared in advance to be tendered in his examination in chief but counsel for the defendants raised objection to exhibiting of the documents, photo copies whereof were produced on record and referred to in affidavit of Shri S.K. Raina. It is further argued that the original power of attorney in favour of Shri S.K. Raina did not see the light of day during trial or appeal proceedings and photo copy of the power of attorney is otherwise inadmissible in evidence. According to counsel, the learned appellate Court has rightly held that no power of attorney was executed in favour of Shri S.K. Raina under the common seal of the company, therefore, Shri S.K. Raina had no authority to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff - company.;