Civil Revision No.4593 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4593 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.2.2009 M/s Swastika Agro Industrial Corporation ...Petitioner Versus M/s Sneh Steel Industries and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Advocate for the respondents. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner has a twin fold grievances. The first facet thereof is qua the placing of onus upon the petitioner-respondent to prove that the suit had been filed by a duly authorised person. In the context of that grievance, it is argued that in the initially framed issues, the onus of that particular issue was upon the defendants-respondents. The grievance is misconceived. There is not even a word in the plaint to indicate that the person through whom the suit had been filed, has been duly authorised to file it. The mere fact that the title of the plaint indicates that suit is being filed through its Managing Director is neither here nor there. A such like averment has to find place in the pleadings which obviously have to be verified in character. That part of the grievance is held to be without force. The other facet of the grievance is with regard to the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner, vide impugned order dated 1.8.2008. Civil Revision No.4593 of 2008 -2- **** Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection if one adjournment is afforded to the plaintiff-petitioner to conclude his evidence. In the circumstances of the case, the petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court shall afford one opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to conclude its evidence subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs. February 20, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge