ANATH BANDHU GUHA AND SONS LTD. Vs. BABU SUDHANGSHU SHEKHAR HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, following leave, is from the judgment and order dated 8.8.89 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court Division, Dhaka in Civil Order No.736 of 1989 dismissing summarily an application under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act and thereby affirming an order dated 25.5.89 passed by the SCC Judge and Senior Assistant Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka rejecting the plaint of Small Causes Suit No.21 of 1988 under Order III rule 1, Order VI rule 14 and Order VII rule II of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Messers Anath Bandhu Guha and Sons Limited, a Bangladeshi Company having its principal office at Mymensingh, through its constituted attorney Md. Sirajul Huq instituted the aforesaid SSC suit against the defendant-respondent for his eviction from the suit premises at 8, Rankin Street, Wari, Dhaka on the averments, inter alia, that the respondent was not paying rent of the suit premises at the rate of Tk. 150/- per month with effect from June 1971. A notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on him on 23.2.88 requiring him to vacate the suit premises on the last day of March, 1988 which the defendant failed to do.

(3.) The suit was filed on 19.4.88. On 23.5.88 the defendant filed an application under Order VII rule 14 and Order XI rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of the original copy of the power of attorney in the Court, alleging that the power of attorney which was executed in Calcutta. India on 11.9.87 and validated at Dhaka on 16.12.87 was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka by an order dated 3.5.88 upon an application of the defendant and after hearing both parties. The SCC Judge directed the plaintiff-appellant to file the original power of attorney in the Court by 15.6.88. The plaintiff-appellant did so on 2.7.88 but took the original copy back on 3.7.88. On 13.8.88 the defendant filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order III rule 1, Order VI rule 14 and Order VII rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, submitting that the plaint is liable to be rejected, the validation being cancelled by the proper authority and consequently the plaint not being executed by any lawfully constituted attorney. The plaintiff-appellant filed written objection. The matter was heard on 3.9.88. By order dated 27.9.88 the SCC Judge directed the plaintiff to re-submit the power of attorney by 27.11.88 with proper validation and necessary Bangladesh stamps. This time the plaintiff-appellant submitted a validated and stamped power of attorney on 27.12.88. The power of attorney was a fresh one, executed in Calcutta on 2.1.88 and authenticated by a Notary Public, Calcutta on 2.1.88 and validated by the Treasury Officer, Chandpur on 10.12.88. By order dated 9.2.89 the SCC Judge rejected the application of the defendant dated 13.8.88 on the ground [hat the defendant had not mentioned under which of the clauses (a) to (d) of Order VII rule 11 CPC the application was preferred, Section 151 CPC being non-applicable.