1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Regular First Appeal No.143 of 2002. Date of decision: 31.03.2009. The Lahaul Potato Growers Coop. …Appellant Versus Sh.Kali Dass & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kullu, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that it had not been instituted by a person competent to do so. The plaintiff, which is a Cooperative Society, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,54,053/- being the principal sum and interest. The suit was filed through Shri Krishan Lal, who was working as an accountant with the plaintiff and who, according to the plaintiff, was authorized to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The allegations in the plaint were that defendant No.1 with the plaintiff was inter alia supplying High Yielding Seed 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Potato. Defendant No.1 was employed as a Helper with the plaintiff-Society in the store at Kullu and had taken articles on credit from the said store. On physical verification, it was fond that there was some deficiency in stocks and in the excess credit etc. which had been allowed by the defendant. A sum of Rs.2,15,299.92 paise was claimed after he had made good the other shortages etc. Defendant-respondent No.2, father of defendant No.1, undertook that in case defendant No.1 did not make good the shortage, he would stand surety for its recovery. Defendant No.3 had stood surety for defendant No.1, at the time of his engagement. The suit was resisted by the defendants on a number of grounds. But the only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the suit has been instituted by a person competent and authorized in that behalf to do so. This issue is being considered as it has been the pivotal issue settled on the basis of which the suit was dismissed. The learned trial Court held that defendant No.1 had actually caused shortages/allowed excess credit to the extent of Rs.5,05,225.42 paise, and that the suit amount which is the shortfall is due and outstanding from defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 and 3 who had guaranteed this repayment. Nine issues have been settled on the pleadings of the parties. The crucial issues, on the liability of the defendants, quantum of liability, the liability of by defendants No.2 and 3 as guarantors, were found in favour of the plaintiff. The issues on limitation, the suit being bad for better particulars, non-joinder of necessary 3 parties were found against the defendants. However, issue No.4, which reads, “Whether the suit has been properly instituted and constituted? OPP”, was decided against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed. In order to reach this conclusion, the learned Court held that Ex.PW-1/A which was the Resolution proved on the record to authorize Shri Krishan Lal to institute the suit was not valid as it did not vest any authority to institute the suit. The findings of the learned Court on this issue cannot be sustained. To say that it has adopted a very pedantic approach would be stating the obvious. The learned Court adopted a very pedantic approach little realizing that the plaintiff is a society in a Tribal District and the intention of the resolution was to authorize PW-1 Krishan Lal for taking all necessary action(s) in pending cases of the plaintiff I cannot persuade myself to hold that there was no authority vested with Shri Krishan Lal to institute the suit, more especially, when he was the person conversant with the facts of the case. The Court has interpreted this resolution in a narrow pedantic manner putting a premium on dishonesty and allowing the defendants to get away with the established liability and driving the plaintiff to another suit. Surely the Court should have been alive to the principle of unjust enrichment and that its decision was a catalyst in enforcing this doctrine which is against law. Another aspect of the case may be considered. PW-4 Shri Madh Ram, Managing Director of the plaintiff, appeared as a 4 witness and stated in his examination-in-chief that the resolution Ex.PW-1/A was prepared by the Society to specifically authorize Shri Krishan Lal to file the suit as he was the person conversant with the facts. I do not find from the record that he has been effectively cross-examined on this aspect. When this evidence is read in its totality, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the suit has been instituted by duly authorized person. The learned Court below has overlooked this evidence completely and deciding against the plaintiff. This interpretation as held by me is pedantic and cannot be accepted on any principle of law. The evidence of PW-4 should have put all doubts to rest as all actions taken by the attorney, namely, Krishan Lal had been ratified by the principal. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff herein is set aside. It is held that Shri Krishan Lal was duly authorisied to institute and file the present suit and accordingly, the defendants are held liable for the amount as determined by the District Judge. The suit of the appellant-plaintiff is accordingly decreed with costs throughout. CMP NO.1189 of 2007. This application is disposed of as being infructuous. March 31, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.