ORDER
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.
1. The petitioner, which is a Private Limited Company, filed this Civil Revision Petition questioning the order dated 15-09-2006 made in I.A. No. 727 of 2006 in O.S. No. 107 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani refusing to receive the document of authorization letter issued by the Plaintiff Company to allow the Assistant Manager (Legal) of the said Company to depose as P.W.1 on behalf of its company.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The plaintiff Company instituted a suit in O.S. No. 107 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, for recovery of money against the respondents. As the plaintiff Company is a Private Limited Company, originally, the plaint was presented by the General Power of Attorney Holder of Godavarikhani Branch of the plaintiff-Company. Thereafter, when the suit has come up for trial, the plaintiff Company filed an application to receive its authorization letter enabling its Assistant Manager (Legal) to depose on behalf of its Company. However, the same was dismissed as stated supra and hence, this revision petition.
3. Despite the fact that the notices are served on the respondents, the respondents have not chosen to put in their appearance.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the approach of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani is illegal.
5. May be it is true that one J. Bhasker, who was the G.P.A. Holder of the said company, instituted the said suit, but it does not mean that he alone has to come and depose on behalf of the plaintiff Company. A company, being a juristic entity, can be represented by one of its Officers. It is not as though the G.P.A. Holder to whom the G.P.A. was given alone has to come forward and depose or if the Company wants to change the Officer for the purpose of evidence, it has to cancel the earlier G.P.A. and then only the new G.P.A. can be given. In this context, it may be apt to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar AIR 1997 SC 3 wherein it was held as follows:
It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be singed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by or against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6, Rule 14 together with Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power. of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and dehors Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorize any person to sign the plaint or the writen statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorized to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example, by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer.
6. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Court below is hereby directed to receive the said authorization letter issued by the Petitioner Company in favour of its Assistant Manager (Legal) and proceed further with the suit in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.