' HASAN PEROZ, J.--- This Revision arises on being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 6-4-2010 and the Decree drawn thereon dated 10-4-2010, passed by learned VIth Additional District Judge Karachi South in Civil Appeal No,199 of 2006, whereby the said civil appeal was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the instant civil revision application are that originally on 15-2-2003 applicant/plaintiff (here-in-after referred to as applicant) had filed Suit No,584 of 2003 praying therein recovery of Rs,215,286/20 as against the respondent/defendant (here-in-after referred to as respondent) stating that applicant is owner/landlord of the building knowin as Muhammadi House, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi while the respondent is tenant in respect of Room No,606 located on 6th floor of the said building on a monthly rent of Rs,9563/63 as rent and Rs,478/18 as betterment tax and Rs,113/19 as water charges, total amounting to Rs,10,155. The respondent lastly paid the rental amount 9563/63 and Rs,478/18 as betterment tax and Rs,113.19 as water charges. The applicant had filed the Rent Case No,1680/2001 on the ground of default since 1st December, 2000 to which was decided in favour of the applicant and thereafter applicant acquired possession of the subject tenement resultant to execution application. Thereafter applicant filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs,215,286.20 with interest at the rate of 14% as costs of the suit. It is pertinent to mention that R&P of the suit file reveals by order dated 24-5-2003 whereby the service upon the respondent was held good and the suit was put of to 31-5-2003 for filing of statement by the respondent. There is another order dated 16-5-2006 available in the suit file which speaks that on said dates counsel for both the parties were present and counsel for the respondent had moved adjournment application and the said application was rejected and as a consequence the side of the respondent was closed and the suit was put off to 27-5-2006 for final arguments. However, lately written statement dated 15-8-2003 was filed by Mian Muhammad Usman, Chief Executive of the respondent wherein amongst other preliminary objections was raised however, mainly on the ground that suit is not maintainable as Board of Directors of applicant did not pass resolution to file the suit and so the suit was opposed on merits alleging specifically that respondent had vacated the premises in November, 2000 and handed- over the key to the representative of applicant and rent until such period was said to be paid.
3. That issues were framed by the learned trial court on 16-8-2004 and evidence of Sandesh Kumar Khatri Exh.1 was recorded who brought on record the copy of General Power of Attorney, the application moved on behalf of tenant before the learned Rent Controller for handing-over possession of the rented premises and certified copy of commissioner report and then Judgment dated 28-8-2006 was passed whereby the said suit was dismissed holding that same is not maintainable with the observation that the witness neither filed Articles of Association nor Resolution passed by the Board of Directors authorizing attorney to file the said suit which the learned trial court has based findings on the dictum as appeared in the case law reported in 2006 CLC P.85 Karachi, since plaint was not filed by authorized person. Decree dated 4-9-2006 to such effect was drawn and the applicant in his capacity as appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree preferred the Civil Appeal No,199/2006 which came up for hearing before learned Vlth Additional District Judge Karachi South and met with the same result of dismissal on the same point referring to Order XXIX, R.1, C.P.C. Through judgment dated 6-4 2010 and such decree dated 10-4-2010 was drawn and being aggrieved by both orders of Courts the applicant has preferred the instant revision application on 9-8-2010.
4. It is pertinent to mention that here before this court the respondent has chosen to remain absent despite several notices issued and so also publication was made in newspaper.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length who has mainly contended that the two courts below have failed to appreciate the law and facts involved and that there was no disposal of the suit on merits and instead on the technical ground the applicant was knocked-out of the proceedings to which otherwise was filed with valid, legal and subsisting cause of action available as admittedly the respondent was the tenant of the applicant and the ejectment of the respondent was ordered in relation to the ejectment proceedings and the filing of the suit was for recovery of the arrears of rent as the possession of the tenement was received by the applicant through court and the stand so taken by the respondent in the written statement was not substantiated by any material and further contended that the filing of the suit was with the signature of the secretary of the corporation, who in his capacity was competent to file the suit and there was no evidence adduced from the side of the respondent before the learned trial court thus according to him the two courts below have failed to appreciate that applicant is a statutory body of the Federal Government and the claim in the suit pertains to the public exchequer in the shape of arrears of rent, which ought not to have been defeated on merely technical ground and to support his arguments he relied upon the case law reported as Habib Bank Limited v. M/s ESS EMM ESS Corporation Pakistan Limited and 5 others 2005 CLD Lahore 854, Karim Dad Khushk v. UBL PLD 2010 Karachi 158 and Saeed Ahmed and two others v. Muhammad Shoaib Khan PLD 2014 Lahore 22.
6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and there being no representation by respondents have consulted the law on the subject.
7. There being concurrent findings whereby the suit before the learned trial court and also appeal before the learned appellate court were dismissed mainly on the ground that filing of the suit was within the provision contained in Order XXIX, R.1, C.P.C. As the appellant in his capacity is a corporation (a corporate body created under the statute which provides a special provision to deal with the cases of statutory corporation as well as company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance) whereas the plaint was filed on the strength of power of attorney which was in respect of rent case and an unauthorized person has filed the suit on behalf of the applicant who also cannot sign or verify the plaint as required under Order XXIX, R.1, C.P.C.
8. I have in my consideration the case of HBL v. M/s. ESS EMM ESS Corporation Pakistan Limited and 5 others, reported as 2005 CLC Lahore 854, and relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant and I am of the view that such suit related to the special law i,e, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act XV of 1997 wherein there was non- verification of plaint by any officer of bank and non-signing of Vakalatnama by any officer of bank and application of bank so moved before the concerned court for removal of such defects was rejected and it was held that such defects were merely irregularities and could not entail maximum penalty of dismissal of suit or rejection of plaint and it was held that Banking Court upon filing of appropriate application ought to have allowed the bank to cure such defects by calling upon concerned attorney of bank instead of non-suiting it on such irregularities, whereas in the case in hand there was no such application moved at any stage seeking permission to correct such defects. The said suit before the learned trial court was apparently filed with reference to section 9, C.P.C. And not under special law, as such, the case law cited is distinguishable to the facts of the case in hand.
9. In the case of Karim Dad Khushk v. UBL reported in PLD 2010 Karachi 158, as cited by the learned counsel for the applicant the controversy involved was with regard to the signing of plaint by unauthorized agent of company and copy of power of attorney was not filed along with plaint, which was filed subsequently and so it was held that if plaint was not competently filed, then such anomaly could be rectified subsequently and suit would not become incompetent on account of subsequent filing of such copy, this decision of the honourable Court as cited by the learned counsel for the applicant again has no bearing to the facts of the case in hand and, on the contrary, the position so involved was entirely different.
10. In the case of Saeed Ahmed and two others v. Muhammad Shoaib Khan reported in PLD 2014 Lahore 22 as cited by the learned counsel for the applicant the trial court marked the presence of the clerk, of counsel in judicial proceedings and it was held that the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 did not recognize the status of counsel's clerk and that clerk of counsel could not be marked as presence in place of his counsel in the judicial proceedings and so also it was laid down that law favors adjudication of dispute of the parties on merits and the technicalities of law should always be avoided to meet the ends of justice. This case law as cited by the learned counsel for the applicant also has no nexus with the issue involved as the suit before the learned trial court was mainly dismissed for non-compliance of Order XXIX, R.1, C.P.C. And the view of the learned trial court was up held by the learned appellate court with further observation that there was no resolution of Board of Directors or any authority to file and institute the suit, at the time of filing the suit.
11. I have in my consideration the provision contained in Order VI, R.17, C.P.C. Which confers powers to amend the pleadings and to rectify the defects so that same should not come in the way of the litigant and further the word at any stage of the proceedings' has a vast scope but here in this case it was until the process of recording of evidence was started and even thereafter until the disposal of the suit by the learned trial court there was no such request made on behalf of the applicant before the trial court however there was another option available to the applicant even after the disposal of the suit to file the second suit as the provision contained in Order II, R.2, C.P.C. Read with section 11, C.P.C. (subject to limitation) will not come in his / their way and more, so with reference to Order XXIX, R.1, C.P.C. The bare reading of the language of statute as appearing makes it clear that the legislature in its wisdom by the use of words "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 principle officer of the corporation is able to depose to the facts of the case' makes it clear that such compliance is of mandatory character and same cannot be override nor it can be said that such is a curable defect and rather the remedy is available in case of such non- compliance is available through Order VI, R.17, C.P.C. So as to avoid future complications and the same was not done, I am therefore of the view that the observations so made by the two courts below are based on proper appreciation of the legal proposition involved, which needs no interference, as such the instant Revision Application is dismissed.
Revision application dismissed.