C.R. No. 5767 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5767 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.09.2010 M/s Hargobind Bus Service (Regd.) .......... Petitioner Versus Jaspal Kaur & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has challenged the order dated 14.8.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide which application moved by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the award dated 19.11.2003 was ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner firm was impleaded as one of the party in claim petition filed by the claimants. The claimants were unable to serve the petitioners by ordinary process, therefore, the petitioners were ordered to be served by way of substituted service. As no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners in spite of publication, the firm was proceeded ex parte, and subsequently the award was passed in C.R. No. 5767 of 2010 -2- ***** favour of the claimants. When the claimants filed an application for execution of the award the petitioners moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 claiming that they had no knowledge of the proceedings and in fact came to know about the ex parte award, only when its property was attached`. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application moved by the petitioners on the ground, that the application was not filed by the competent person, as Manager of the firm was not authorised to move such application, nor any authority letter was placed on record. In order to record the finding, that the application was not filed by authorised person, reliance was placed by the learned Tribunal on the judgment of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Bata India Limited v. Amiya Sankar Patra AIR 2010 (NOC) 674, and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant v. S. Ahmad, Respondent, AIR 1978 Allahabad 195. In spite of the positive finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, that the application was not moved by the competent authority, the firm has again chosen to file this revision through its Manager by way of simple authority letter. As per the provisions of Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the registered firm can sue or to be sued through two partners and none else. The authority to third person can only be given by power of attorney and not by way of authority letter. The applicant did not , C.R. No. 5767 of 2010 -3- ***** therefore, have any locus standi to file the revision petition or petition before the learned Tribunal. Finding of the learned Tribunal do not call for any interference by this Court, as the application was admittedly not filed by the judgment debtor, or their duly authorised agent as rightly held by the learned Tribunal. No merit. Dismissed. 08.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE