1. ' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CJ.---In this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- " that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 28-2-2001 passed by the learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) and also set aside the impugned judgment dated 5-9-2000 passed by the Respondent No.3 (the learned Trial Court) on application under section 114 C.P.C. And may also be pleased to pass other just, legal and proper order in favour of the petitioner/plaintiffs and against the respondents, and grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the above case deems 'fit and proper."
2. ' The brief facts leading to this Constitutional Petition are that the petitioner filed a suit against respondents Nos.1 and 2/defendants for recovery of Rs.1,73,461. After service of summons 'on both the respondents/defendants they made appearance through their Advocate who filed his power.
3. However, subsequently, neither any Written Statement was filed on their behalf nor their counsel ever made appearance before the trial Court. The trial Court proceeded to strike off the defence of both respondents No.1 and 2/defendants and also ordered for- ex parte proceedings against them with the direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to file affidavit in ex parte proof. One Najeebur Rehman Siddiqui, claiming himself to be the General Attorney of the petitioner filed his affidavit in ex parte proof. The suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 5-9-2001 for non- production of the power of attorney by the attorney of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under section 114 C.P.C. Read with section 151 C.P.C. For review of the judgment but the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 28-2-2001. Against this order of dismissal the petitioner filed a revision application under section 115 C.P.C. In the Court of District Judge, Karachi, West, which was transferred to II Additional District Judge, Karachi West, who by order dated 28-2-2001 also dismissed the same. Finding no other remedy the petitioner challenged the said order by way of this Constitutional Petition.
4. ' We have heard the arguments of Mr. Naveed Ahmed Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naeem Ahmed, Advocate for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record as well as the relevant provisions of law.
5. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1984.
6. The principles relating to filing of suit by or against corporations are embodied in Order XXIX of the Civil Procedure Code. By virtue of rule 1 of Order XXIX of the Civil Procedure Code in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose the facts of the case. This rule requires filing of a suit by a corporation through an authorised person and a plaint or appeal on behalf of a corporation can only be signed/verified by a person duly constituted in accordance with Articles of the Corporation. For determining whether a suit had been instituted by a person empowered to do so reference would have to be made to the Articles of Association of the Corporation. In the present case there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner made any attempt to satisfy the trial Court that the plaint had been signed and verified by a person who was duly authorised to do so in accordance with the Articles of the Company. The plaint was signed by one Najeebur Rehman Siddiqui, claiming himself to be the general attorney of the petitioner-company. Initially he did not even file a copy of the power of attorney along with the plaint so as to enable the trial Court to ascertain as to whether the power of attorney was executed in his favour in pursuance of a resolution passed in accordance with the Articles of Association of the Company. From perusal of the order of the III Senior Civil Judge, Karachi West dated 5-9-2000 on the application under section 114 C.P.C. Read with section 151 C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner, it transpires that the said power of attorney was executed in favour of attorney Najeebur Rehman Siddiqui by Muhammad Farooq, a Director of the plaintiff-Company. A director of a corporation has no authority to execute a power of attorney in favour of another director unless so authorised to do so by the Board of Directors. The petitioner/plaintiff, thus did not produce any material before the trial Court to establish that the plaint in the suit filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff was signed and verified by a person in accordance with the provisions of Order XXIX C.P.C. And the Articles of Association of the petitioner's Company. The trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the petitioner as it had not been filed in accordance with the provisions of Order XXIX C.P.C. And the said Najeebur Rehman Siddiqui had failed to establish that he had been legally authorised to sign and file the plaint on behalf of the petitioner-Company.
7. Under section 114 C.P.C. a review application is maintainable for enabling the Court to correct the errors. The main aim of the power of review is to prevent injustice being done by a Court and is subject to the limitation provided in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of Order XLVII C.P.C. One of the most essential requirements for invoking review, jurisdiction of a Court is that important evidence having a material hearing upon the merits of the case and the decision thereof was subsequently discovered, which was neither in the possession nor in the knowledge of the aggrieved party before passing of the judgment/order sought to be reviewed and further that the important evidence referred to above was in existence when the judgment/order was made. It is also the requirement for maintainability of a review application that the party applying for review should establish that there was no negligence or carelessness on its part and further that the evidence or the material required to be produced was not only relevant but also of such a nature that if considered it would effect the decree or order. A review petition will not be allowed where a party had not acted diligently and cautiously in producing evidence which it wanted to bring on record subsequently.
8. ' Viewed in the background of the aforesaid principles governing the filing of a review application, it is to be observed that the alleged power of attorney whereby attorney Najeebur Rehman -Siddiqui was constituted as an attorney of -the petitioner for signing and verifying plaint could have been easily produced before the trial. Court if the petitioner had acted diligently and carefully. Even a photocopy of the said power of attorney was not attached along with the plaint. Apart from the above shortcoming, the question which requires consideration is whether such power of attorney could have been proper and valid to authorize Najeebur Rehman Siddiqui to sign and verify plaint on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as there was no material on record to substantiate that Muhammad Farooq, Director, had been authorised by the Board of Directors to execute a general power of attorney in favour of Najeebur Rehman Siddiqui authorizing him to sign and verify plaint on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Naveed Ahmed Khan was unable to give a satisfactory reply as to why the plaint had not been signed by the Secretary or by any Director or other principal officer of the Company who was able to depose the facts of the case or by a person who had been duly constituted to doing in accordance with the Articles of Association .Of the Company. In the circumstances, the plaint had not been signed and verified by a person competent to sign and verify pleadings on behalf of the petitioner's Company. The above actual background leads to an inference that there exists no valid document wherefrom attorney Najeebur Rehman could have exercised the power of signing and verifying pleadings on behalf of the petitioner's Company. The petitioner did not take any effective steps to overcome the legal infirmities which had cropped up in the way of filing the suit. The trial Court did not commit any illegality in dismissing the application under section 114, C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. As the facts of the case did not warrant invocation of review jurisdiction of the trial Court and the proper course for the petitioner was to have filed an appeal against the order.
9. Interference in a judgment/order under section 115, C.P.C. Can only be made if the party applying under section 115, C.P.C. For revision of an order succeeds in establishing; that the order sought to be revised was in exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Court; that the Court failed to exercise a jurisdiction vesting in it; and that it had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. From the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of the order passed on review application under section 114, C.P.C. None of the aforesaid grounds is found to be available to the petitioner as in dismissing the revision application the trial Court neither exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in it by law nor tailed to exercise jurisdiction which so vested in it nor acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and the Appellate Court rightly dismissed the review application.
10. The petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction as the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or mala fides. The presence of any of the aforesaid defects to an order/judgment is necessary for interference by this Court. This Constitutional Petition was found to be without any merit and did not require consideration. Accordingly by a short order dated 16-5-2002 it was dismissed in limine for reasons to be recorded later. These are the reasons for the said short order.