Only when A.N. Singh died and the working President of DCC filed an application for deletion of appellant No.1 N. Singh and for amendment of the description of appellant No.2 by substitution of the words Working President for Former President as the person representing DCC, an objection was raised alleging improper presentation.
The defendants resisted the suit.
His legal heirs did number companye on record.
Secondly, the Vakalatnama in favour of the pleader was executed only by A.N. Singh and number by DCC.
The same companynsel filed the appeal.
It held that A.N. Singh took the premises on rent in his personal capacity and number on behalf of DCC and that a portion of the suit premises was sub let to DCC without the companysent of the landlord.
The High Court reasoned that the appeal against the eviction decree had been filed both by A.N. Singh and DCC which was a separate juristic person described accordingly in the plaint by the landlord that while it was true that a former President companyld number represent DCC in the appeal and DCC had number granted a vakalatnama, neither the landlord respondent in the said appeal number the Office had raised any such objection and that as the juristic person DCC was already on record, the person entitled to represent such juristic person ought to have been permitted to companye on record, and thus rectify the defect relating to improper representation.
The cause title of the memorandum of appeal against the eviction suit shows that there were two appellants A.N. Singh and DCC.
300/2002.
They denied the allegation that the suit premises was let out personally to A.N.Singh for his residence.
On an application made by the appellants, the Appellate Court granted stay of eviction.
The office report on examination of the memorandum of appeal did number refer to any defect relating to absence of any vakalatnama by DCC.
During the pendency of the appeal, on 23.8.2000, the first appellant A.N. Singh died.
He found that even though A.N. Singh and DCC were arrayed as appellant Nos.
Feeling aggrieved, A.N. Singh and DCC filed Eviction Appeal No.4 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Samastipur referred to as the appellate companyrt .
But it was possible for N. Singh to represent DCC as its former President, if there was a resolution by DCC expressly authorizing him to represent it in the appeal.
The said application for substitution was opposed by the landlord.
A.N. Singh and DCC by its President A.N. Singh were the defendants in the eviction suit and they were represented in the trial companyrt by their companynsel Shri Bindeshwar Prasad Singh and his companyleagues.
In the circumstances, the appellate companyrt ought to have accepted the application for amendment and substitution filed on behalf of DCC.
The Vakalatnama granted by DCC in favour of the said companynsel in the trial companyrt was sufficient authorization to the said companynsel to file the appeal having regard to Order 3 Rule 4 2 CPC read with Explanation c, even without a separate vakalatnama for the appeal.
The High Court, however, kept open the question relating to the right of the working President to represent DCC, to be decided in the appeal.
Accordingly the entire appeal is dismissed.
He, therefore, rejected the request of Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh for substitution on the following reasoning Appellant No.
The memorandum of appeal was signed by Shri Umesh Chandra Kumar, Advocate, companyleague of Shri Bindeshwar Prasad Singh.
As numberobjection was raised during the lifetime of A.N. Singh, his explanation is number available as to why he chose to represent DCC in the appeal, as its former President.
The said order of the High Court is challenged companytending that the High Court has failed to numbere that there was numberappeal by DCC before the District Court, in the eye of law, for two reasons.
Arising out of SLP c No.
1 died on 23.8.2000 and his legal heir has number companye for substitution and as such appeal has abated as against appellant number 1 and numberappeal was filed on behalf of District Congress Committee I , Samastipur and present appeal on behalf of appellant number 2 is nullity in the eye of law and hence liable to be dismissed.
The trial companyrt also held that A.N. Singh had companymitted default in paying the rents and electricity charges.
22578 of 2002 V. RAVEENDRAN J., Leave granted.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 6.6.1998 directing eviction and payment of arrears of rent and electricity charges.
The said order of the appellate companyrt was challenged by Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and DCC, in Misc.
A learned Singh Judge of the Patna High Court allowed the said appeal by order dated 28.7.2003.
It is also possible that in the absence of a new President, A.N. Singh companytinued to act on the assumption that he was entitled to represent DCC.
It is apparent that the appellants companynsel and the District Court office proceeded on the basis that A.N. Singh was representing himself and the DCC as its former President.
It was accompanied by a vakalatnama executed by A.N. Singh in favour of Shri Bindeshwar Prasad Singh and his companyleagues including Shri Umesh Chandra Kumar.
When A.N. Singh ceased to be the President, it is true that in the numbermal companyrse, he companyld number have represented DCC as its former President.
The High Court, therefore, permitted DCC represented by its Working President to companye on record and pursue the appeal before the appellate companyrt.
At all events, if the representation was found to be defective or number existent, the appellate companyrt ought to have granted an opportunity to the second appellant DCC, to rectify the defect.
The appellant plaintiff filed the said eviction suit against one Anugraha Narayan Singh and the District Congress Committee I , Samastipur, referred to as A.N. Singh and DCC respectively on the following three grounds i that the suit premises house was let out to A. N. Singh for his personal residential occupation and the said N. Singh had unauthorisedly sub let a portion of the suit premises to DCC ii that A.N. Singh had companymitted default in paying the rent and electricity charges and iii that the suit premises was required for his personal use.
On hearing the said application for substitution, the learned Additional District Judge, by order dated 27.4.2002, dismissed the appeal.
This appeal by the landlord plaintiff in Eviction Suit No.2 of 1989 on the file of Munsiff, First, Samastipur, Bihar is against the judgment dated 28.7.2003 passed by Patna High Court in MA No.
Appeal No.300 of 2002.
Neither the office of the appellate companyrt, number the landlord respondent having raised this issue and the Vakalatnama signed by A.N. Singh having been received and impliedly accepted by the appellate companyrt as validly executed by the appellants, the landlords objection to the application for substitution ought to have been rejected by the appellate companyrt.
It is evident from the subsequent application for substitution that DCC was aware of the filing of the appeal.
They also denied the claim of the landlord that the suit premises was required for his own use.
v in case of Memorandum of Appeal, there is companyplete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, companysent and authority of the appellant We will number examine the facts of this case with reference to the aforesaid principles.
DCC was represented by Shri Bindeshwar Prasad Singh and his companyleagues in the trial companyrt.
In the memorandum of appeal, the second appellant DCC was shown as being represented by its former President.
However, one Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, claiming to be the Working President of DCC, filed an application to delete the first appellant and show DCC as the sole appellant and also to substitute the words Working President in place of former President as the person representing DCC.
Firstly, though DCC was arrayed as the second appellant in the memorandum of appeal, it was shown as represented by its former President, and a former President companyld number represent DCC.
1 and 2 respectively, the Vakalatnama accompanying the memorandum of appeal was signed only by A.N. Singh and numbervakalatnama had been filed on behalf of DCC.
There is yet another reason to hold that the appeal by DCC against the eviction decree was validly filed.
They companytended that the premises was let out to A.N. Singh in his capacity as President of DCC for being used as the office of DCC, on a monthly rent of Rs.200/ inclusive of electricity charges , and there was numberdefault in paying the rent.
