Power of attorney notarization defects are curable, and purchase orders can support a summary suit under Order 37.

A defective power of attorney lacking notarization does not, by itself, invalidate institution of a suit where the authority is later ratified through a fresh notarized instrument; the defect was treated as procedural and cured before summons for judgment. Purchase orders may constitute written contracts for purposes of Order 37 CPC, so a claim founded on them can proceed as a summary suit. Where the defendants raised a triable dispute about the nature of the transactions and related counter-claims, leave to defend was warranted, with the Court structuring relief on conditional terms rather than rejecting the suit outright.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was invalidly instituted because the power of attorney relied upon by the plaintiff was not notarized, and whether the later notarized power of attorney could cure the defect by ratification; (ii) Whether the suit based on purchase orders and related payments was maintainable under the summary procedure of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was invalidly instituted because the power of attorney relied upon by the plaintiff was not notarized, and whether the later notarized power of attorney could cure the defect by ratification.

Analysis: Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 raises a presumption regarding duly executed and authenticated powers of attorney, but the absence of notarization does not by itself establish absence of authority to institute the suit. The subsequent filing of a fresh notarized power of attorney ratifying the acts already taken showed that the authority had been affirmed during the pendency of the suit. In a summary suit, the defect stood cured before summons for judgment were served, so the objection was procedural and not fatal to maintainability.

Conclusion: The objection to institution on the ground of lack of notarization was rejected, and the defect was held curable by ratification.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit based on purchase orders and related payments was maintainable under the summary procedure of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The purchase orders were treated as written contracts, and therefore the claim fell within the scope of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. At the same time, the defence raised a triable issue concerning the nature of the transactions and the counter-claim arising from alleged supplies made on instructions relating to third-party exports. That dispute justified leave to defend, while the Court balanced the competing positions by imposing a condition only to the extent of the disputed claim.

Conclusion: The suit was held maintainable under Order 37, and leave to defend was granted on terms, including an unconditional leave aspect and a condition of furnishing bank guarantee to the extent directed.

Final Conclusion: The summary suit was held maintainable, the objection as to institution failed, and the defendants were allowed to contest the matter, with relief structured by the Court on conditional terms.

Ratio Decidendi: A defect in notarization of a power of attorney does not invalidate institution of the suit where authority is subsequently ratified before material proceedings in a summary suit, and purchase orders can constitute a written contract supporting proceedings under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---