- (1.) The petitioner, a public limited banking company (hereinafter called 'the Bank') filed a suit against the respondents for the recovery of Rs. 10,58,391.40. An objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that the suit has not been filed by a competent person on behalf of the Bank. After the plaintiff had closed its case, an application was filed for permission to produce a number of documents, relating to the said objection of the respondents. This application was rejected by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Karnal, vide order dated May 7, 1979. The present petition has been filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, against that order.
(2.) On the date of hearing, Mr. D.S. Nehra, the learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that this petition was liable to be dismissed having not been filed under the authority of the governing body of the Bank which alone was competent to do so. The revision petition bears the signatures of Mr. S.K. Gawari, Advocate, in whose favour the power of attorney was executed by Mr. Avtar Singh Bedi and its terms authorised the former to file appeal, review, revision etc. Mr. Avtar Singh Bedi was appointed attorney by a resolution of the Board of Directors which authorised him amongst other things to file suit against the respondents, for the recovery of the amount in dispute and to sign and verify the plaint, appoint counsel and execute power of attorney in their favour to take out execution of any decree that may be passed, file any appeal, review or revision that may become necessary in connection with that suit. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that this power of attorney executed in favour of Mr. Avtar Singh Bedi only authorised him to file the suit, appeal, revision, etc., but the decision that the suit or appeal or revision is to be filed has to be taken by the Board of Directors. Secondly, he contended that even if it may be accepted that Mr. Avtar Singh Bedi had the authority to take a decision to file appeal or revision, it was he who could take this decision and this authority could not be further delegated in favour of the Advocate appointed by him. Lastly, it was contended that even the power of attorney executed by Mr. Avtar Singh Bedi in favour of Bakhshi Shivcharan Singh came to an end on the death of the former and the fresh power of attorney executed in favour of the latter does not authorise him to file any appeal or revision. In support of this contention, reliance was placed by the learned counsel on Murti Shri Raghunath Ji v. Joginder Singh etc., 1971 CurLJ 47; The Municipal Committee, Ludhiana v. Surinder Kumar,1970 CurLJ 631 and Notified Area Committee, Okara v. Kidar Nath and others, 1935 AIR(Lah) 345.
(3.) After heading the learned counsel for the parties at length and going through the decisions relied upon by them, I do not find any merit in the preliminary objection. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Board of Directors by a resolution had the authority to appoint any attorney to take necessary legal proceedings against the respondents for the realization of the amount in dispute including the filing of any suit, appeal or revision as it may be deemed necessary. The Board of Directors did appoint Shri Avtar Singh Bedi for the said purpose and authorised him to take all necessary legal steps including the filing of appeal, revision or execution application. It, therefore, cannot be disputed that by virtue of the authority in his favour, Mr. Avtar Singh Bedi by himself had the right to decide and file any appeal or revision in the matter concerned. He was also authorised to appoint an Advocate for the said purpose. He, in exercise of that power, appointed Bakhshi Shivcharan Singh as the Advocate and authorised him to file any appeal and petition for execution, review or revision. As Mr. Avtar Singh Bedi was authorised by the Board of Directors to file any appeal, review or revision and also to appoint an Advocate he could certainly confer all those powers on the Advocate appointed by him. The moment the power of attorney was executed in favour of Bakhshi Shivcharan Singh by Avtar Singh Bedi, he became Advocate of the Bank having been authorised to file an appeal or revision. He had the authority to engage another counsel for that purpose and no fresh instructions were needed from the Bank in this respect. In Ramdeo Tilok Chand Aggarwal v. Lalu Natha, 1937 AIR(Nag) 65, the party appointed a general agent to conduct litigation on his behalf and gave all powers necessary for the conduct of the case. The agent appointed a pleader by vakalatnama duly signed and filed and gave him power to appoint another pleader by the vakalatnama duly signed by himself and such pleader filed the appeal. On these facts it was held by Stone, C.J., that the appeal was properly constituted as the agent was duly authorised under the power of attorney to give a pleader a power to appoint another pleader and the pleader who filed the appeal had been duly authorised by the pleader engaged by the agent. In this case, though the party was a private person and not a company as in the present case, but it hardly makes any different because once the Bank had under the resolution of the Board of Directors appointed Mr. Avtar Singh Bedi authorising him to take all steps necessary for taking all the legal proceedings against the respondents, the attorney had the full authority to take all necessary steps in the matter and to file revision, review etc., without any further instruction from the Bank. On the other hand the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents were rendered on the peculiar facts of those cases and have no bearing so far as the present case is concerned.;