KHYAM FILMS AND ANOTHER vs BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD.

ORDER

1. ' This is a revision under section 115, C. P. C. Challenging the order of the Civil Judge III Class, Lahore ; who dismissed the preliminary objection taken by the defendants to the maintainability of the suit.

2. The short point urged before me by the learned counsel is that even though there was a power of attorney produced in the case it bad not been proved that those who executed the power of attorney had the power to do so under the Articles of the Company and the Memorandum of Association. The power of attorney according to the learned counsel must have been signed by some of the directors. Well if that is so I am unable to see how the objection as to the validity of the power of attorney can be sustained. It is, however, suggested that in the Articles of Association of some companies it is only by the resolution of the Board that such a power to institute suits can be given. I have really never seen any force in those objections .Which are frequently taken in such suits by banks in this part of the country. In my opinion the fact that the person did or did not have authority can effectively be challenged only by the principal. If in spite of the objections taken the principal continues to recognise the authority of the agent to institute the suit I am inclined to think that this would amount to a ratification and the suit would still be a validly instituted suit. I am further clearly of the opinion that it is wrong on the part of the Court below to promptly frame a preliminary issue on such questions and then go on with it for a couple of years before the main claim comes to be considered. Such a practice is to be deprecated. B If the plea of the kind as taken in this case is raised it may be tried along with the whole suit. I say so because my impress is that these pleas are taken recklessly and most of the time the idea is to delay the decision of the suit. These delays are detrimental to a healthy commercial practice.

3. The second point urged was that in so far as the management of this bank had been taken over by the National Bank the authority had to be issued by the National Bank or there should have been a special recognition of that authority. 1 do not agree. The authority given by the Bank of Bahawalpu shall continue unless the bank which has taken over the management cancels it or declares it to be not binding.

4. The third point is that this power of attorney was put into Court after the period of limitation. This point again is devoid of any force. If there was authority to institute the suit the fact that the power was filed after the limitation would certainly make no difference to the question of limitation.

5. ' .