The instant Regular First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2015 passed by Civil Judge, Lahore whereby the suit for recovery and damages with permanent injunction filed by the Appellant was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that the Appellant filed a suit for recovery of withheld amount Rs.14,404,163/- of the work done along with damages of Rs.20 million against the Respondents. After recording of evidence of parties, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013 on the ground that the suit had to be filed through duly authorized person. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the Appellant through RFA No.1080 of 2013 which was allowed and matter was remanded to trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2014 with certain directions to decide it in accordance with law. Pursuant to aforesaid remand order , the trial Court, after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit vide impugned judgment, hence the ,present appeal.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Record reveals that a suit before the trial Court was filed by the Appellant through Saleem Akbar Khan, Chief Executive of the, company . The trial Court, after recording of evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit with the observation that it was not maintainable as it had to be filed through duly author ized person and Saleem Akbar Khan being CEO had no capacity to file the same. The Appellant was not satisfied with the observation and challenged the judgment and decree through RFA No.1080 of 2013 which was decided vide order dated 17.11.2014. It is very important to reproduce the order dated 17.1 1.2014, relevant portion of which reads as under: "If the Respondents filed any application for amending their written statement by adding an objection about the authority of the signatory of the plaint and learned trial Court will decide the application in accordance with law.
Likewise, if the appellant wants to amend the plaint the learned trial Court will also decide the appellant's application in accordance with law".
5. The above observations clearly demonstrate that an opportunity was given to the parties to amend the pleadings, if they required so, and prove their version accordingly . The argument of learned counsel for the Appellant that the settlement agreement between the parties was duly executed and as such all documents were done in a proper manner carries no weight as the trial Court in the impugned judgment and decree observed that "the plaintiff failed to enjoy benefits of the order of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore for proper amendments in the plaint of the suit in a proper form. Counsel for the plaintiff moved only an application for compliance of order of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore and subsequently application of the defenda nt was decided by my learned predecessor but plaintiff failed to produce authority letter in his evidence regarding the appointment of Muhammad Salim Akbar Khan being the duly appointed Chief Executive of the company for following all the matter of the company". Further observed that the "Plaintiff failed to prove his appointment being duly authorized person as plaintiff Alamdar Engineering is a private Limited Company and suit has been filed in the capacity of CEO which is against the spirit of law"
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot (represented By 6 heirs) v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd.,Lahore" (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 550 ) held as under: "Suit on behalf of Company by a person is not competent unless he is so authorised by a resolution passed by Company's Board of Directors".
In "The Central Bank of India, Ltd., Lahore v. Messrs Taj ud Din Abdur Rauf and others" (1992 SCMR 846), it was held as under:
4. Being aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellant Bank preferred an appeal before the High Court, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that in the absence of any proof of the resolution passed by the appellant Bank proving the grant of the power of attorney to Mr. S. K. Shikari, the said attorney was not competent to institute the suit. The appeal was therefore dismissed".
Moreover , in recent judgment cited as "Rahat and Company through Syed Naveed Hussain Shah v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan Statutory Corporation, Finance and Trade Centre through Secretary/Chief Executive Of ficer" (2020 CLC 872 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order VI, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader , if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company .
Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company".
7. In view of the above situation, we fully agree with the findings of the trial Court and do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree which has been passed in consonance with the spirit of law, hence, does not call for interference by us.
10. As a sequel to above, this Appeal is hereby dismissed.