IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL.

CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,

MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)

Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,

XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.

O.S.No.26308/2018
Dated this 22nd day of August 2019

Plaintiff:- Shri. Arjun Sarja S/o Shri Shakthi Prasad,

Aged about 53 years, R/at No.3366,
13th Cross, II Main Road, K.R Road,
Bangalore-560028, Represented by his
authorized representative Shri. Dhruva Sarja.

(Rep by Smt. Vandana.P.L-Advocate)

V/S
Defendant:- Ms. Shruti Hariharan D/o Shri. Hariharan,
Aged about 30 years, Occupation: Film Actress,
Address (As given in Film Directory),
R/at No.212, 10th Cross, G Block,
Sahakarangar, Bengaluru-560092.

Alternative addresses:
1. No.125, Block, Prestige South Ridge
Apartments, Hosakerehalli Main Road,
Banashankari 3rd stage, Bangalore-560085.

2. Near Airtel Office, 13th Cross, TC Palya,

Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore.
(Rep by Sri. JK-Advocate)
 2 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

ORDER ON IA No.4

The defendant filed application U/O 3 R 2 R/w Order 6 R 14 of

CPC, 1908 R/W Rules 9 and 16 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice,

1967 & R/W Sec 151 and Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the suit

instituted by the plaintiff without any Power of Attorney issued by him in

favour of Sri.Dhruva Sarja who has signed all the pleadings on his behalf,

merely on the basis of a letter of authorization. In the accompanying

affidavit the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed suit U/Sec 26 R/W

Order 7 R 1 of CPC the suit filed by the plaintiff against her is false. The

plaintiff filed the said suit through his alleged representative Mr.Dhruva

Sarja, who is stated to be the nephew of plaintiff. In this regard the

plaintiff has executed a letter of authorization, dated 23/10/2018 in favour

of Mr.Dhruva Sarja authorizing him to sign necessary papers related to

court proceedings against the defendant. The said letter of authorization

dated 23/10/2018 is insufficient and invalid and does not permit to sign

the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff in this matter. As per the provisions

of the Code of Civil Procedure, all the pleadings have to be signed by a

duly authorized agent and a person is duly authorized only by executing a

 3 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

Power of Attorney. The defendant in her affidavit narrated the provision

of Order 3 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, Order 6 Rule 14 of CPC and narrated

about the Sec 9 and 16 of CPC, The Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice,

1967. The defendant further submits that the parties on behalf of she/he

is required by law to duly authorized a person on her/his behalf who shall

be her recognized agent. Order 3 R 2 of CPC describes the conditions

required to be met to constitute a recognized agent. Rule 2(a) expressly

defines recognized agents as “persons holding power of attorney”,

authorizing them to act on their behalf. In cases where persons are

carrying on trade or business for and in the name of parties not resident

with the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court and in matter connect

with the trade or business only, that person may be a recognized agent.

Further the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 reiterate the

requirements laid down in Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC, and provided U/Rule

16(a) that a person appearing on behalf of the party must filed in the

court a power of attorney or authenticate copy thereof. The defendant

further stated that a mere of letter of authorization does not prove that

due authorization has been granted in terms of the CPC. Parties must
 4 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

produce a Power of Attorney of the party who is not personally signing and

verifying the petition in order to ensure that the person signing the plaint

is properly and duly authorized to do so. Authorization letters are

permitted only when the party is a body corporate and the company or the

board of directors issue a Letter of authorization authorizing any person to

sign and appear on behalf of the company. This is not permissible in the

case of an individual, who needs to provide a Power of Attorney. In the

instant case, the plaintiff has failed to execute a Power of Attorney in

favour of Mr.Dhruv Sarja, and therefore the plaint has been instituted

improperly without being signed in accordance with Order VI Rule 4 of the

CPC and Rule 9 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967. The

defendant prays to allow the application and reject the plaint.

2. The plaintiff filed objection submitting that the application filed

without understanding the essence of the Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The

plaint can be rejected only for those reasons mentioned there under. The

application failing to show as to which particular part of the rule is

attracted, is avoid ab-initio from the tenure of the application even if it is

presumed that the application is presented through a authority holder and

 5 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

a Power of Attorney, the same is a frivolous conception as there is no bar

under law. Order 3 R 2 is largely misunderstood by the defendant that it

bars only suit presented by agents without Power of Attorney is mishomer.

Order 3 R 2 of CPC is any enabling provision and not restricted provision.

In any case the sustainability of the suit if prosecuted through an agent is

a matter of trial. By quoting various provisions in the application by the

defendant only seem to be making a barren glorifying attempt in dragging

the suit to a wrong direction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arman

Dandam’s case has condemned such practices on the lawyers who would

either by themselves or by misguiding the clients indulge in such

mischievous practices. The plaintiff prays to reject the application.

3. The plaintiff and defendant counsel argued and filed citations.

Perused records.

4. The following points arise for my consideration.

1. Whether the application filed by the

defendant for dismissing the suit and
rejecting the plaint is deserves to be
allowed?

2. What order?
 6 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

5. My finding on the above points are as under

Point No.1) In Negative

Point No.2) See final order for following:

:REASONS:
6. Point No.1:

The contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff filed

the suit through his alleged representative Mr.Dhruva Sarja, who is stated

to be the nephew of plaintiff and in this regard the plaintiff has executed a

letter of authorization, dated 23/10/2018 in favour of Mr.Dhruva Sarja

authorizing him to sign necessary papers related to court proceedings

against the defendant. But the suit filed by the said Mr.Dhruva Sarja on

the said letter of authorization of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The

defendant further submits in the affidavit accompanying the application

that as per provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., Order 6 Rule 14 of

C.P.C. and Sec 9 and 16 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 the

suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The

counsel for the defendant argued in length and relied upon the decision
 7 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

reported in (1944)46 BomLR 350 [Chunilal Bhagwanji V/s. Kanmal

Lalchand] relating to Order 3 rule 1 of C.P.C.

7. On the contrary the plaintiff counsel argued in length submitting

that the application filed under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is not maintainable

since the prayer of the defendant does not cover the said provision.

Further the plaintiff represented through his counsel in the suit and he

has executed authorization to represent the plaintiff and conduct the

proceedings. Therefore, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of CPC

complied. The plaintiff counsel relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay, reported in AIR 1961 Bom 292 [All India Reporter

Ltd., and another V/s. Ramachandra Dhondo Datar]

8. The plaintiff counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 3 [United Bank of India

V/s. Sh. Naresh Kumar and Ors] wherein it is held:-

“In this appeal, therefore, the only question which arises

which arises for consideration is whether the plaint was duly
signed and verified by a competent person.
 8 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

In case like the present where suits are instituted or defended

on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be
permitted to be defeated on a mere technically, procedural
defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not
be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power
in the courts, under the code of civil procedure, to ensure that
injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far
as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be
defeated on account of procedural irregularity which is
curable”

9. The provision Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as follows:

Rejection of plaint

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the

plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the

plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite
 9 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do

so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint
to be barred by any law :”

(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate.

(f) Where the plaintiff fails comply with the provisions of

Rule 9.

10. In Order VII Rule 11 of CPC it is specifically mentioned when the

plaint has to be rejected. But the prayer of the defendant is that the suit

filed without Power of Attorney and only on the basis of authorization

letter is not maintainable. But the relief claimed by the defendant in the

application does not covers the provision of order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

Further initially the suit is registered through Mr. Dhruv Sarja, who is being

issued letter of authorization, dated 23/10/2018 by the plaintiff authorizing

him to sign necessary papers related to court proceedings against the

defendant. But while registering the suit the office has not noted any

objections. The relief claimed in the application by the defendant that for

rejection of plaint not comes under the provision Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
 10 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

The citations referred by the defendant as discussed above does not help

to their relief claimed in the application. Further as per Order 3 Rule 2(b)

CPC any recognized agent may appear on behalf of the party. Hence in

the present suit the plaintiff’s recognized is appeared by filing the authority

letter. Hence Order 3 Rule 2(b) CPC applies to the present case in hand.

Hence defendant failed to prove that plaint has to be rejected is not

proper to accept. Therefore there is no grounds to reject the plaint as

contended by the defendant. Hence I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

11. Point No.4:-

In view of the above discussed I proceed to pass the following

:Order:

The application filed U/O 3 R 2 R/w Order 6

Rule 14 of CPC, 1908 R/W Rules 9 and 16 of the

Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice and R/W Sec 151

of CPC and U/O 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the

defendant is hereby rejected.

 11 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

Costs shall follow the events of suit.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected

and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 22nd day of
August 2019).

(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BENGALURU.
 12 O.S.No.No.26308/2018

:Order:

The application filed U/O 3 R 2 R/w

Order 6 Rule 14 of CPC, 1908 R/W Rules 9

and 16 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of

Practice and R/W Sec 151 of CPC and U/O 7

Rule 11 of CPC by the defendant is hereby

rejected.

Costs shall follow the events of suit.

(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BENGALURU.
13 O.S.No.No.26308/2018