Karnataka High Court
Private Eye (P) Ltd. vs Hind High Vaccum Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 26 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: AIR2003KANT95, ILR2002KAR4875, AIR 2003 KARNATAKA 95, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2899, (2002) ILR (KANT) (3) 4875, (2003) 1 RECCIVR 530
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
ORDER N.K. Patil, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in both the petitions.
2. In CRP 819/2001 the petitioner-Company is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment dated 14th December, 2000 passed by the XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore trial Court in SC 16698/1999 whereby the learned Small Causes Judge dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23720/- from the defendant with interest at 24% from the date of suit till realisation.
3. In CRP 820/2001 the petitioner-Company is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment dated 14th December, 2000 passed by the trial Court in SC 16699/1999 whereby the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,335/- from the defendant respondent with interest at 24% from the date of suit till realisation, has been dismissed.
4. As the parties are common and common question of law is involved in both these petitions, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.
5. The facts of the case in both the revision petitions briefly stated are as follows :
The petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of rendering security service to various companies, institutions, individuals etc., During the course of business, the respondent approached the petitioner for providing security service at their factory premises. The petitioner has been providing security service at the factory of the respondent as per the terms of the agreement. Respondent being satisfied with the service of the petitioner, was renewing the contract from time to time. However, the services of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 1-4-1998. The respondent deducted a sum of Rs. 13,500/- from the petitioner's bill dur-
ing the period of December, 1994 to April, 1995 towards the cost of certain items alleged to have been stolen from the respondent's factory on 3-1-1995. In view of that, respondent withheld a sum of Rs. 13,500/- on untenable grounds. Hence, the petitioner has filed a suit in SC No. 16698/1999 for recovery of Rs. 23.720/-which is the subject matter in CRP 819/2001.
6. In respect of deduction of Rs. 8,250/-from the plaintiff-petitioner's bill during the period Jan.. 1998 towards the cost of certain items alleged to have been lost from respondent's factory, the petitioner withheld Rs. 11,335/-. Hence, the petitioner plaintiff filed the suit SC 16699/99 for recovery of Rs. 11,335/- which is the subject matter in CRP 820/2001.
7. The respondent has appeared before the trial Court and filed written statement in both the suits denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the plaints. Further it is stated in the written statements that the suit filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation and also contended that the petitioner who is a director has signed the plaints and he was not authorised to do so. Therefore, he contended that the suits are not maintainable. The trial Court after hearing both the sides and after framing issues and considering the evidence of the parties oral and documentary has dismissed both the suits filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner-company has not authorised the Director to file the suit and sign the plaints nor the petitioner Company has produced any authorisation by way of passing the resolution or executing a power of attorney etc., and also taking into consideration that the suits filed by the petitioner are barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner has presented these revision petitions.
7-A. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the material on record. Further he has rightly pointed out that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. He is quick to point out the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of United Bank of India v. Nareshkumar & Others reported in AIR 1997 SC page 3.
The point of law involved in the present case was considered in the said decision. If the same is taken into consideration, the petitioner has a case to prosecute the suit by signing the plaint even without authorization and further he rightly pointed but that the trial Court has not framed appropriate issues for adjudication of the matter, on the basis of the stand taken by the petitioner -company in the plaints. Therefore, he prayed that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suits filed by the petitioner and the same are illegal and liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the Director who has filed the suits has not been authorised by the company nor he has produced any document in spite of giving opportunity to put forth his case and he has taken the stand in the written statements that the suits filed by the petitioner - company are not maintainable in view of non authorisation given to the Director who has filed the suits and further he pointed out that there is inordinate delay in filing the suits. Hence, the suits filed by the petitioner - company are liable to be rejected as barred the limitation. He tried to justify the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court.
9. The questions that arise for consideration are :
1. Whether the plaints were duly signed and verified by a competent person?
2. Whether the suits filed by the petitioner Company are within the prescribed limitation period?
10. REG. POINTS 1 AND 2 : As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India wherein it is held-
"In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on mere technicality. Procedural defects which do riot go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just cause. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable."
In view of law laid down by the Apex Court and ratio of the judgment which is directly applicable to the instant case, the impugned judgments of the trial Court are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Further it is significant to note that the trial Court has not framed appropriate issues regarding the limitation for filing the suits. In my considered view the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suits without framing appropriate issues.
11. Having regard to the factual and legal position of law and taking into consideration the totality of the case in hand, there is no justification to sustain the impugned judgments of the trial Court.
For the foregoing reasons, revision petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 14th December, 2000 passed by XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes. Mayo Hall, Bangalore in SC 16698/1999 and SC 16699/1999 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh disposal with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suits on merit after giving opportunity to the petitioner and the respondent and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court as cited supra.