1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.R.A.NO.21 of 2010. Parth s/o Jayedebkumar Majumdarao ..vs.. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.S.M.Patrikar Adv. for the applicant. None for the respondent. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 24th February, 2010. The revision-applicant is the judgment debtor in Reg.Darkhast No.161/2009 arising out of R.C.S.No.336 of 2004 filed by the respondent/decree-holder. The applicant had filed objections to the execution of decree under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code which objections were considered by the executing court and rejected by its order dated 6th of February, 2010, which has been impugned in the present proceedings. The main contention, which had been taken up before the executing court and which has been 2 pressed upon in the present revision application is that one Ashok Gajbhiye, who had signed the plaint in R.C.S.No.336 of 2004, was not authorized by the Board of Directors of respondent-bank to file the suit. Mr.Patrikar, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that for filing the suit on behalf of the corporation under Order 29 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, there has to be a specific authority given to the person signing the plaint by a resolution of Board of Directors. He submits that in the instant case admittedly there is no such resolution passed and that this admission is in the cross-examination of the witness of the respondent/bank. He draws attention to part of para no.21 of the notes of evidence, which reads : “I have not produced any resolution of our Bank authorizing me to depose in this case on record. Not true that I have no authority to depose in the matter.” This admission is in respect of the authority of the witness himself and not of the person signing the plaint. No question was put to the witness as regards authority of Ashok Gajbhiye to file the suit. Therefore, there can be no substance in the 3 argument that there is an admission on the part of the respondent that there was no authority given to Ashok Gajbhiye to file the suit. In addition to this, the impugned order shows that the very objection was taken by the revision applicant in writ petition No.4280 of 2009 filed by him. This court while disposing of the writ petition, observed in its order as follows - “ Contention of Shri Patrikar learned counsel that Bank did not prove that, suit was validly instituted by showing any resolution for that purpose or any authorization in favour of its signatory is not very relevant here.” Thus the contention has already undergone judicial scrutiny. The revision-applicant cannot revive the question for consideration of the executing court. In the circumstances, the revision application is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute 4