Corporation authority and limitation for setting aside ex parte decree failed; revisional interference was refused for no jurisdictional error.
A corporation seeking to prosecute an application to set aside an ex parte decree must establish proper authority for the officer conducting the litigation; mere power to sign and verify pleadings under Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC is not enough. The courts below found the District Manager was not shown to be competent, and that the application was also time-barred because the alleged date of knowledge of the decree was not proved by cogent evidence. In revision, interference under Section 115 CPC was unwarranted because no jurisdictional error, material irregularity, failure of justice, or irreparable injury was demonstrated, and the revision was dismissed.
Issues: (i) Whether the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed by a competent person; (ii) Whether the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was barred by limitation; (iii) Whether the revision petition disclosed any material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference.
Issue (i): Whether the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed by a competent person.
Analysis: Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a corporation to have pleadings signed and verified by specified officers, but it does not confer authority on such an officer to conduct the litigation unless such authority is otherwise established. The concurrent finding of the courts below was that the District Manager was not shown to be competent to prosecute the application on behalf of the corporation.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The courts below found that the petitioner failed to prove by evidence the alleged date of knowledge of the ex parte decree. In the absence of cogent proof, the oral assertion of the officer was insufficient to establish that the application was within time.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (iii): Whether the revision petition disclosed any material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference.
Analysis: Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits revisional interference only where the impugned order would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury, or where jurisdictional error is shown. The courts below had recorded concurrent findings on competence and limitation, and no jurisdictional defect or material irregularity was established.
Conclusion: No ground for revisional interference was made out.
Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed on all substantial grounds and stood dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional interference is unwarranted in the absence of jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or demonstrated failure of justice, and a corporation must establish proper authority for prosecution of proceedings beyond mere signing and verification of pleadings.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
