Burden of proof and perverse findings in revision: company suit was validly instituted, but respondent was not liable for the claimed amount.

In revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, interference lies where a subordinate court's finding is perverse or rests on an erroneous burden of proof, but not with a supported factual finding on liability. The company's suit was held to have been validly instituted because the general manager's authority was backed by a resolution and power of attorney, with the minutes book properly proved. On the merits, the respondent was found not liable for the claimed amount, as the evidence did not establish any real borrowing by him, the payments were shown to have been made by his father, and section 41 of the Contract Act, 1872 did not assist the claimant.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit had been validly instituted and the plaint properly signed and verified on behalf of the company; (ii) whether the respondent was liable for the amount claimed on the basis of the alleged arrangement and voucher.

Issue (i): whether the suit had been validly instituted and the plaint properly signed and verified on behalf of the company.

Analysis: The authority of the general manager to institute proceedings was supported by the company resolution and power of attorney. The minutes book produced from proper custody contained the resolution, and the witness identified the chairman's signature. The trial court's insistence on production of the secretary and its rejection of the minutes book on speculative grounds placed an unwarranted burden on the petitioner and led to a perverse finding.

Conclusion: The suit was duly instituted by a person lawfully empowered to act for the company.

Issue (ii): whether the respondent was liable for the amount claimed on the basis of the alleged arrangement and voucher.

Analysis: The trial court accepted the respondent's case that no real borrowing by him was proved and that the payments toward the debit were in fact made by his father. The petitioner's documentary and oral evidence did not dislodge that finding. The respondent's earlier letter did not amount to a substitution of debtor, and section 41 of the Contract Act, 1872 did not assist the petitioner.

Conclusion: The respondent was not liable for the amount claimed.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the first objection was rejected in the petitioner's favour but the decisive finding on the respondent's non-liability remained undisturbed, leaving no ground for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, interference is justified where the subordinate court's finding is vitiated by an erroneous burden of proof or is perverse, but a concurrent factual finding on liability will not be disturbed absent such infirmity.

---