JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Solapur dated 19th September 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1986.
2. The petitioner claims to be in occupation of the premises being room No. 175, consisting of four rooms in Municipal House No. 60/4, Murarji Peth, Solapur. The respondent plaintiff instituted a suit before the Court of Joint Civil Judge, J. D., Solapur being Regular Civil Suit No. 483 of 1982 for possession of the suit property. The plaint as filed by the respondent would admit the position that the respondent was a textile mill and a public limited company which went into liquidation in the year 1957. The mill properties including the suit premises were auctioned pursuant to the order passed by the High Court. That the Government of Maharashtra purchased the mill properties in the said Court auction. It is also admitted that Government of Maharashtra thereafter got the mill managed through the Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Ltd. as an agent under the unemployment relief scheme from i-4-1958 to 31-3-1976; and thereafter the ownership of the mill has been transferred to the Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Ltd. The plaint also admits the fact that Maharashtra Textile Corporation Ltd. is registered under the Indian Companies Act. In other words, the suit property was formerly the property owned by the Textile Mill-respondent herein which eventually went into liquidation. The trial Court has decreed the said suit for possession as filed by the respondent against the petitioner. Even the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the District Judge, which order is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
3. The short question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is, whether the suit as filed by and in the name of the respondent herein can be said to be maintainable or barred by Law?
4. From the averments made in the plaint, it would appear that the plaintiff admits the fact that it (Textile Mill) was a public limited company which went into liquidation and its properties including the suit premises were purchased by the State Government in court auction conducted as per the orders of the High Court. Naturally, therefore, the Government of Maharashtra became the owner of the entire mill properties including the suit premises. In my view, having regard to the admitted position that the Textile Mill went into liquidation and its properties auctioned, a fortiori the company became a non-est person in the eyes of law and at any rate it did not possess any right, title or interest in the suit premises after the same was purchased by the Government in court auction. Understood thus, the plaint filed by and in the name of the Textile Mill-respondent herein was therefore barred by law for having been filed by a non existing person and more particularly by a person who had no right, title or interest in the suit premises at the relevant time. It cannot be gainsaid that, even after the liquidation, the public limited company continued to remain a juristic person or that it had any right in relation to the suit premises, auctioned notwithstanding. Proprio vigore the plaint filed at the instance of such plaintiff was not maintainable in law. It was, therefore, the duty of the trial Court to dismiss such a plaint at the threshold in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 1 l(d) of Civil Procedure Code which postulates that plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
5. The courts below have clearly misdirected in concluding that the person who had filed the plaint was duly authorized by the Board of Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Ltd; and, therefore, the plaint was maintainable. This approach is totally impermissible especially when the plaintiff has been described as “The Narsingh Giriji Mill”, which was a public limited company, subsequently went into liquidation, whereas at the relevant time the Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Ltd. was the owner in respect of the suit property, which is entirely a separate juristic person. If at all the suit was to be instituted, it ought to have been instituted by and in the name of the present owner and not by the Textile mill which had gone in liquidation. The fact that the present owners of the suit property (Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Ltd.) have allowed the old name of the unit ‘The Narsingh Giriji Mill” to continue would not permit filing of suit by or in the name of the unit when the owners of the subject property were the Corporation. Moreover, the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent has deposed that the Corporation is running the respondent mill through its General Manager (Shri Y. E. Chaudhari) who was an appointed officer of the Corporation and was duly authorized by the Board of the M.S.T.C. to file the said suit, but no document in support of such authorization of Shri Y. E. Chaudhari who had filed the suit was produced before the Court. It was wholly inappropriate for the Court to accept the bare words of the plaintiff witness in this behalf, in absence of cogent proof, on the specious ground that the said witness was an employee of the mill and had no personal interest in the matter. Even on this count the view taken by the Courts below regarding authority of a proper person to file suit for and on behalf of the real owners cannot be sustained in law.
6. In the circumstances the decree of possession passed in the suit instituted by the respondent by both the courts below cannot be sustained in law and the same is set aside. Writ petition therefore, succeeds. Rule is made absolute with costs.