' The appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs,3,77,592 before the Banking Court. The respondents filed an application for leave to defend the suit before the learned Banking Court. The respondents raised preliminary objection that the suit of the appellant be dismissed as the appellant did not file suit through the competent person, in view of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances. Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The learned Banking Court vide impugned judgment, dated 17-11-1998 dismissed the suit on the said ground while deciding the application for leave to defend the suit of the respondents. Hence, the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel of the appellant submits that the suit was filed by the appellant through a competent person in terms of section 9 of the aforesaid Act. He further submits that Branch Manager is competent person in view of provision of law and the appellant's counsel had presented power of attorney of authorised person also given by the competent Authority during arguments before the Court but the learned Banking Court refused to accept the power of attorney. He further submits that the judgment of the learned Banking Court is not in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts: In support of his contention, he relied upon "Citibank N.A. v. Judge Banking Court IV and others" (2001 CLC 171).
3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned judgment is valid as the appellant failed to file power of attorney of the competent person in spite of objection raised by the respondents before the Banking Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon "1994 CLC 1233".
(It is pertinent to mention here that no judgment is available at this page).
4. We have considered the contentions, of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce section 9(1) of the Act to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- "9. Procedure of Banking Courts.---(1) Where a borrower or a customer of a Banking Company commits a default in fulfilling any obligation with regard to any loan or finance the banking company or, as the case may be. The borrower or customer. May institute a suit in the Banking Court by presenting a plaint duly supported by a statement of account which shall be verified on oath in the case of a banking company by the Branch Manager or such other officer as the Board of Directors of a banking company may authorise in this behalf.
' Copies of the plaint shall also be filed alongwith insufficient numbers so that there is one copy for each defendant and one extra copy."
' Mere reading of aforesaid section reveals that the Branch Manager is competent to file a suit against the respondents. The suit was filed by the Branch Manager, therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Banking A Court is not in accordance with law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in "Citibank N.A. v. Judge Banking Court, etc." (2001 CLC 171). The relevant observation is as follows:-- "From the provisions of section 9, it is discernible that requirement of law is to file a plaint alongwith the statement of accounts. Of course, plaint has to be filed by a duly and lawfully authorised person. Section 9 does not provide that if copy of power of attorney is not filed alongwith the plaint, the plaint should be rejected or suit should be dismissed."
6. We have perused the plaint and found that the same was signed by the Branch Manager of the plaintiff/Bank. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside with the result that the suit of the appellant shall be deemed to be pending adjudication, which shall not be decided by the learned Banking Court alongwith the application for leave to defend in accordance with law. No order as to costs.