® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$ ARH AT BI ASPUR WHT PETITION 227 N0. 625012010 Chhatu'sgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Through: Its Dy. Manager, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, Bilaspur (CG). Pramod Kumar Bhatt, S/o Shri Pmtap Narayan Bhatt, R/o Maisonait 40, Sector -I, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil 8r. Disnict Raipur (CG). Shri Shashikant Damoh, S/o Shx'i G.P; Damoh, R/o K—l, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (CG). Shri Govind Prasad Damoh. S/o Late Shn’ Murlidhar Damon, Rio K4, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (CG). Shri Pratap Nalayan Bhatt, Slo Shn‘ Babmam Bhatt, R/o Maisonait 40, Sector —I, Shankar Nagar, Raipm, 'Tahsil 6r. District Raipux (CG). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONWI‘ITUTIOH OF WRIT INDIA. Present:- Mr. Goutam Bhadun‘, Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar 'I‘iwa'ri, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents, although notice unaerved. By this petiu‘on under Aru'cle 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the Older dated 15/ 6/ 2006 passed by 3rd Additional Dismct Judge, Raipm (CG) in M.J.c. No. 13/2002. Petition andorder dated 15/6/2006 perused by which 3‘“ Additional Disuict Judge, Raipur (CG) rejected the plaint as well as application dled on behalf of the counsel who was as per onler not authorized by the petitioner. beamed counsel for the petidoner submits that originally suit was med on behalf of the M.P. Financial Corporation and plaint was signed by Radheshyatn Nandlal Upadhyay he has duly appointed counsel to represent the Cox-pomtion after death of Radheshyam Nandlal Upadhyay, counsel (SB :Hon’ble Mt. T.P.sharma. J.) ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 12I0712011) \\ a} appointed by him was applied for amendment in the plaint same was dismissed on the ground that Radheshyam Nandlal Upadhyay has not shown his capacity to sign and thereafter plaint and alleged counsel has not been appointed by the Corpoxation, on the afomsaid grounds suit was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitw'ner 1’1111her submits that as per order 29 of the Civil Procedme Code Secxetary, Dixector or Other Principal omoer of the Corporation able to depose to the fact of the case is authorimd to sign and thereafter pleading. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Radheshyam Nandlal Upadhyay was O$cer of the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliame in the matter of anhmm p ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION TAMIL NADU, PETITIONER V. UIIION OF INDIA, RESPONDENTljn which Supreme Court has held that while rejech‘ng I the plaint on the ground of defect, Court is required to provide opportunity to cure such defect. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed teliance in the matter of PANCHANAN DHARA AND OTHERS v. MONMATHA NATH, HAITY [gm] THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER“ in which Supreme Court has held that not putu’ng the seal of the Company is not serious irregularity or defect. Admittedly, as per plaint allegation Radheshyam Nandlal Upadhyay was neither Secretary nor Director of the Corporation even he has not pleaded that he was Principal O$cer of the Corporation able to depose to the facts of the case. ln‘plaint aforesaid person has not pleaded his capacity to sign and verify the pleadings. Counsel was appointed by aforesaid person Radheshyam Nandlal Upadhyay and not by Corporan'on, in these circumstances virtually suit died, at the time of presentation wafsinot hled by person who was \ \ ’_AIR 2003 so 189 2 (2006) 5scc 34o #Jr_ @ competent to Ea. Counsel appointed by such pason was not competent to rcpxesent the Corporau'on, this is not cmable defect or question of not purring seal but this is a question of competenéy to me suit. Case of Salem Advon te Bar Association Tamil Nadu & Panchanan Dhara and Others (Supra) axe distinguishable on the yound of facts. While dismissing such suit, Court below has not committed any illegality requiring any interference. Consequently, pen'tion is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. T.P.Sharma ludge Wk ‘ sd/_