ORDER
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by M/s Subh Timb Steel Limited (hereinafter described as ‘the petitioner’) directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated 1.11.1994. The learned Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts are that respondents had filed an ejectment application against the petitioner. Notice of the ejectment application was ordered to be served oh M/s Yash Paul Garg and Company Pvt. Limited for 24.2.1990. It is contended that one Shri R.K. Garg was the Director of the Company. He made a statement before the learned Rent Controller suffering an order of eviction. The petitioner’s case is that Shri R.K. Garg had been ceased to be the Director of the Company from 26.8.1983. The information about resignation of Shri Garg was submitted to the Registrar of Companies at Jalandhar in Form 32. Subsequently, even the name of the Company was changed to the present name i.e. M/s Subh Timb Steels Limited. As a result of the statement made by Shri R.K. Garg and order of eviction had been passed. The said order reads:-
“In view of the statements made by the counsel for the parties and the compromise deed Ex. CI, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent is directed to vacate the premises in dispute, on or before 31.3.1991 failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to get the possession through the process of this Court. Memo of costs be prepared and file be consigned to the record room. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.”
3. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the petitioner-company had filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable for want of proper authority in favour of the Managing Director who had filed the same. Hence, the present revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that on 19.11.1992 the Board had authorised the Managing Director to institute the appeal and the revision with respect to the disputed premises and the action so taken, if any, stood ratified. He strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme court in the case of United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3. The Supreme court considering somewhat a similar question held:-
“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 signed 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 authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written 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 authorised 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 case where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers, a Corporation can ratify the said action of its officers 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.
It is abundantly clear from the findings recorded by the Supreme Court that ratification can be expressed or implied. The Court can on basis of the evidence on record come to such a conclusion. The action, if any, taken by the Director could be ratified regarding signing of the pleadings.
5. In the present case the Appellate Authority has not gone into the said controversy as to what is the effect of the resolution, alleged to have been passed during the pendency of the appeal. In these circumstances it is unnecessary to go into the other factors and the revision petition is liable to be allowed.
6. For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority is set aside. The learned Appellate Authority would be competent to consider as to if any such resolution has been passed and the effect thereto. If it is held in favour of the petitioner, the appeal shall be decided on its merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 27.10.1999.