Sole proprietorship suits must be filed by the proprietor, and affidavit evidence must substantially comply with Order XIX CPC.
Affidavit evidence under Order XIX CPC must be confined to matters within the deponent's knowledge, with the source of belief disclosed where necessary; a verification in substantially compliant form was accepted, but unsupported assertions given as based on record had little evidentiary value. A sole proprietorship has no separate legal personality and cannot sue in its own name; the plaint must disclose the proprietor and the authority of the person signing and verifying it. Because the suit was instituted only in the firm's name without proof of authority, the filing was held defective and unauthorised, and dismissal was sustained.
Issues: (i) Whether the affidavits filed in evidence were properly verified and admissible under Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) Whether a suit instituted in the name of a sole proprietorship concern, without showing the proprietor as the plaintiff and without proof of authority of the signatory, was properly instituted.
Issue (i): Whether the affidavits filed in evidence were properly verified and admissible under Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Analysis: Affidavits may be received as evidence only in accordance with Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, and their contents must be confined to matters within the deponent's knowledge, with the source of belief disclosed where required. A verification stating that the contents are true and correct to the best of knowledge was treated as substantial compliance with the rule, but the evidentiary value still depended on the record and cross-examination. On the facts, the witness's statement that the affidavit was based on record was unsupported by the affidavit or any produced record, reducing its probative value.
Conclusion: The affidavits were not rejected solely for defective verification, but they carried little or no reliable evidentiary value on the record.
Issue (ii): Whether a suit instituted in the name of a sole proprietorship concern, without showing the proprietor as the plaintiff and without proof of authority of the signatory, was properly instituted.
Analysis: A sole proprietorship concern is not a separate legal entity and cannot sue in its own name. A suit relating to such a concern must be instituted by the proprietor, and the plaint must disclose who the proprietor is and who has signed and verified it. Here, the plaint described the plaintiff only as a proprietorship firm, did not disclose the proprietor in the plaint, and did not establish that the named representative had authority to institute the suit. The court therefore treated the institution of the suit as defective and unauthorised.
Conclusion: The suit was not properly instituted and was liable to dismissal.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit was sustained because the proceedings were not validly instituted in law, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A sole proprietorship has no separate legal personality and cannot maintain a suit in its own name; the plaint must be instituted by the proprietor or by a duly authorised person, and affidavit evidence must conform substantially to the requirements of Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
