JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by defendant No. 1,Ramkumar Inani son of Shri Laxmi Narayan against the judgment and preliminary decree dated April 21, 1969, posted by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara in'favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in a 'suit' for rendition of accounts. Respondent No. 2, who was defendant No. 2 is a proforma party in this appeal. 2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff M/s. Ramkumar Morarka & Sons Private Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the 'plaintiff- company') through its Muktiar khas Banwarilal "son 'of jaidev Nathuramka in the court of District Judge, Bhilwara October 20, 1964. It was averred by the plaintiff-company that it is registered under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Seksaria Chambers, 139, Medows Street, Fort, Bombay; that a Khandsari Factory was run by the plaintiff company known as 'India Khandsarl Work's (for short 'the factory'). It was further stated in the plaint that the company's representative Ramrichhpal Patodia (for Short R.R. Patodia') and defendant No. 1 Ramkumar agreed between themselves that the latter would run the factory on behalf of the plaintiff-company and the plaintiff-company would supply, money as and when required and that in case the plaintiff company runs in profit, it would pay to him-such remuneration as it thinks fit. In pursuance of this agreement, the charge of the factory was handed over to defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff -company on July 15, 1962 and a list 'A' was prepared of the articles which were delivered to him. The amount of Rs. 13993.68 was who paid by the plaintiff-company to defendant No. 1 as asked by him from time to time, the details of which have been mentioned in list 'B' which was submitted with the plaint. The factory remained under the control and management of defendant No. 1 from July 16, 1962 to August 13, 1963. In para 17 of the plaint it was alleged that the entire accounts of income and expenditure of the plaintiff-company were kept by the defendants, that in those accounts considerable amount was debited in the nature of defendant No. 1 and that the defendants had sent certain accounts, trial balance and letters from time to time. In the plaint, the plaintiff-company has averred certain transactions relating to the business. In the plaint, the plaintiff-company has averred certain transactions relating to the business. The plaintiff company has also alleged that the defendants did not keep the accounts properly and so possession of the factory was taken from them by Banwari Lal on August 13, 1963. Hence, the suit was instituted for the rendition of accounts. It was prayed that a decree for Rs. 24083.08 or the amount that may be found due from the defendants and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till, realisation of the amount, may be passed in. favour of the plaintiff-company. 3. Both the defendants filed a joint written statement on January 18, 1965 raising several pleas. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-company is not registered one and the suit brought by Banwarilal is not maintainable. It was denied that defendant No 1 was an agent of the plaintiff-company. The principal defence taken in the written statement was that the factory was owned by Shri Ramrichhpal Jalan (for short R.R. Jalan) and defendant No 1 was his partner and that he came in possession of the factory, through him R.R. Jalan): According to the defendants, the owner of the factory forcibly took the possession of the factory, stores, machinery, account book etc., which were in the factory and that stock was not deficit at that time. It was stated that the defendant had made correct entries in the accounts books of the factory and that they did not keep any amount of the factory. R.R. Patodia was representative of R.R. Jalan and, the former, had entered into an agreement with defendant No 1 on behalf of R.R. Jalan. The defendants went on to state that R.R. Patodia did not have any negotiations or: settlement in his capacity as, a representative of the, plaintiff-company. The defendants denied that the plaintiff-company has any right to demand any accounts from him. The principal defence of the defendant is contained in paras 31, 33 and 44 in the additional pleas of the written statement. 4. The learned District Judge framed the following issues inclusive of relief on January, 18, 1966. (1) Is the plaintiff Ramkumar Murarka & Sons Private limited company of Bombay: (2) Is the plaint signed and verified by an unauthorised person and as Such is not maintainable ? 4. The learned District Judge framed the following issues inclusive of relief on January, 18, 1966. (1) Is the plaintiff Ramkumar Murarka & Sons Private limited company of Bombay: (2) Is the plaint signed and verified by an unauthorised person and as Such is not maintainable ? (3) Is the suit not maintainable because the names of the Managing and other Directors of the plaintiff company have not been shown in 'the plaint ? ' (4) Is the , factory, 'India Khandsari Works Mandal', by the plaintiff (5) Was it settled injury 62 between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 that plaintiff would furnish needed capital and the defendant No. 1 would run that factory and in case of profits the plaintiff would pay to the defendant No. 1 whatever amount the plaintiff thought it proper for his labour and in pursuance to that, defendant No. 1 took charge of the factory from 16.8.62 and it remained with him till 13 8-63 ? (6) Whether India Khandsari Works Mandal belongs to, Ramrichhpal Jalan and defendant No. 1 agreed to run it as a partner in the circumstances and upon the terms mentioned in para No. 31 of the written, statement? (7) Are both the defendants liable to render the accounts to the plaintiff? (8) What relief? It may be stated here that issue No. 6 was deleted by the learned District judge on July 26, 1968. 5. The plaintiff-company examined PW I Banwarilal, PW 2 Jamna Lal, PW 3 Mohd. Shafi, PW 4 Ramrichhpal Jalan, PW 5 Ganesh Narayan, PW 6 Bhoginder T. Munim and PW 7 Jagdish Prasad. The plaintiff-company has proved the documents Ex. 1 to Ex 40. Defendants have examined DW I Ramkumar, DW 5 Jankilal, DW 3 Hajarimal, DW 4 Mohanlal, and DW 5 Devilal as their witnesses. The defendant proved the documents Ex. Al to Ex. A9. 6. The learned District Judge, in his judgment dated April 21, 1969, has arrived at the following findings; (1) that the plaintiff, company is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956; (2) that Banwarilal was a duly authorised person to sign the plaint and he could depose the facts of the case and so his verification of the pleading is also not defective. Issue No. 2 was, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff company. Issue No. 2 was, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff company. (3) that it was not necessary for the plaintiff-company to mention the names of the Managing and other Directors of the plaintiff company and for non-mention thereof the suit cannot be said to be not maintainable. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff company. (4) that the factory was owned by the plaintiff-company. Issue No. 4 was, consequently, decided in favour of the plaintiff- company; (5) that the defendant No. 1 worked in the factory as an agent of the plaintiff-company, whose representative R.R. Patodia appointed him and that he worked in this capacity from 16-7-1962 to August 13, 1963. Issue No. 5 was, therefore, decided against defendant No. 1; (6) that the defendant No. 2 is not liable to render accounts and that it is only defendant No. 1 who is responsible to render accounts to the plaintiff- company. 7. In view of the aforesaid findings arrived at by the learned District Judge, he dismissed the suit against defendant No. 2 with a direction that the plaintiff company would pay Rs. 50/- as counsel's fee to him, in case any certificate of fee is filed on his behalf. He, however, passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff-company and against defendant No. 1 for rendition of accounts for the period from July 16, 1962 to August 13, 1963 and for this purpose, Commissioner was appointed to submit his report by August 9, 1969. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, defendant No. 1 has filed this appeal as aforesaid. 8. Mr. L.C. Maloo, appearing for defendant No. 1 appellant, has challenged the findings on issues Nos. 2, 4 and 5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, defendant No. 1 has filed this appeal as aforesaid. 8. Mr. L.C. Maloo, appearing for defendant No. 1 appellant, has challenged the findings on issues Nos. 2, 4 and 5. His contentions in brief are as under : (1) that Banwarilal had no authority to institute the suit and that the suit so instituted was not maintainable as the plaint, which was filed on October 20, 1964, was signed by an unauthorised person; (2) that the factory was not owned by the plaintiff- company and as such it had no locus standi to institute the suit for rendition of accounts; (3) that defendant No. 1 took the factory for running it from R.R. Jalan, its owner, that R.R. Patodia was R.R. Jalan's representative and that he was taken as a partner on the terms and conditions mentioned in para 31 of the written-statement and as such the suit by the plaintiff-company for rendition of accounts is not maintainable. 9. The first question, which I propose to determine is whether the factory was owned by the plaintiff-Company ? Issue No. 4 relates to this. The learned District Judge, after considering the relevant oral and documentary evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the ownership of the factory vested in the plaintiff company and not in R.R. Jalan or his partner Vishvambhar Dayal. Ex. 3 dated February 24, 1960 is an agreement which is alleged to have been made between R.R. Jalan (vendor) and Ramkumar Morarka & Sons (P) Ltd. (purchaser). This agreement Ex. 3 is alleged to have been executed by Ramrichhpal Mirzamal and Mahavir Prasad on behalf of the plaintiff company. PW 4 Ramrichhpal, Jalan was examined on behalf of the plaintiff company as its witness. From his statement, it is clear that he along with Vishvambhar Dayal founded the factory in 1958, that both of them were partners, that subsequently he separated him (Vishvamber Dayal) and thus became the sole-owner of the factory. He has further deposed that after becoming exclusive owner of the factory, he raised loan from the plaintiff company in order to run the factory and that thereafter, he sold it to the plaintiff-company for Rs. 105801/-. He has denied his partnership with defendant No. 1. He went to the length of saying that he did not know defendant No. 1. 105801/-. He has denied his partnership with defendant No. 1. He went to the length of saying that he did not know defendant No. 1. He has also denied that he appointed R R. Patodia as his representative. PW. 6 Bhogander T. Munim, after seeing agreement Ex 3. deposed that he has prepared it and that at the instance of Ramrichhpal and Sitarompuria, he made corrections in his own hand-writing in ink, put the date and Ramrichhpal signed the said agreement Ex. 3 in his presence, which was attested by him. According to the statement of this witness the corrections were initialled by PW 4 Ramrichhpal. PW 7 Jagdish Prasad has stated that the plaintiff. company is a private company, which, at the relevant time, had two Directors: (1) M.R. Morarka and (2) Ratan Lal Morarka and that he has been serving the plaintiff-company as an Accountant since 1961. He has stated that he has been writing the account books of the company since 1959. He has deposed that he is acquainted with the signatures of Shri M.R. Morarka and his identified his signatures on the agreement Ex. 3. In order to prove the ownership of the plaintiff company, PW 5 Ganesh Narayan was examined. He is an ex-employee of the factory. From his statement, it is clear that he worked in the factory during seasons in the year 1959 and 1960. This witness has further stated that he does not know R.R. Jilin (Vendor). He has also stated that he went at Mandal on November 4, 1962 and worked in the factory upto August, 1963 with defendant No. 1. PW 4 R.R. Jalan (vendor) has admitted the execution of the agreement Ex 3 Ramkumar Morarka died in 1962 as is clear from the statement of PW 5 Ganesh Narayan. 10. In rebuttal, D.W. I Ramkumar (defendant No. 1) has stated that R.R. Patodia was representative of R. R. Jalan and not that of plaintiff-company. According to defendant No. 1, R.R. Jalan and Vishvambhar Dayal were owners of the factory and not the plaintiff company. Defendant No. 1 has stated as a witness that he was partner in the factory with R.R. Jalan and writing to this effect is with R.R. Jalan but PW 4 K.R. Jalan has categorically denied that defendant No. 1 was a partner in the factory. About writing no cross-examination was directed. Defendant No. 1 has stated as a witness that he was partner in the factory with R.R. Jalan and writing to this effect is with R.R. Jalan but PW 4 K.R. Jalan has categorically denied that defendant No. 1 was a partner in the factory. About writing no cross-examination was directed. No steps were taken to lead prebendary evidence in respect of the writing which was said to be with PW 4 R.R. Jalan. It is significant to note that when PW 4 R.R. Jalan appeared as a witness, he was not cross examined with respect to the fact that the accounts were sent by him to R.R. Jalan and Vishvambhar Dayal. According to DW 2, Jankilal, a partnership-deed was written. Defendant No. 1 (as DW 1) has admitted in his written statement that he had good relations with R.R. Jalan as well as Vishvambhar Dayal. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has attacked agreement Ex. 3 on the ground that its stamps were purchased on February 4, 1960 in the name of M/s. Bachu Bhai Munim, & Co from the stamp-vendor, that at the most this is merely an agreement to sell business land and factory at Mandal and plant, machinery and stock in trade in connection therewith and, therefore, it is not a completed sale. This state meet Ex. 3 was filed on February 26, 1965 whereas the suit was filed on October 20, 1964 and the written statement was filed on January 18, 1965. Learned counsel, further, contended that the agreement Ex. 3 contains blank-spaces and that no sale-deed subsequent to Ex. 3 was either executed or has been produced. PW 6 Bhoginder T. Munim was not cross examined regarding purchase of stamp. It, however, appears from Ex. 3 that M/s. Bachu Bhai Munim & Co. are attorneys at law. The blank spaces at pages 4 and 5 of Ex. 3 are in respect of number of days and date and they are not of any significance as besides Ex. 3 no other document is said to have been prepared and the date is mentioned in agreement Ex. 3 itself. PW 7 Jagdish Prasad has deposed that no conveyance was prepared as the Rajasthan Financial Corporation had taken the objection to change the proprietorship unless and until loan is repaid. 3 no other document is said to have been prepared and the date is mentioned in agreement Ex. 3 itself. PW 7 Jagdish Prasad has deposed that no conveyance was prepared as the Rajasthan Financial Corporation had taken the objection to change the proprietorship unless and until loan is repaid. FW 4 R.R. Jalan has admitted that the factory was sold by the agreement dated February 24, 1960 for Rs. 105801/-. In pursuance of that, Banwarilal took possession of the property. It is correct that no question was put to PW 1 R.R. Jalan for the purpose of identifying his signatures on the agreement Ex. 3 but he has admitted that he has written the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-company and thereafter the factory was with the plaintiff company. PW 1 Banwarilal, who was an employee of the plaintiff company since 1960, has stated that on Ex. 3, Ramrichhpal put his signatures A to B in his presence. He has further stated that on behalf of the plaintiff - company, Mahavir Prasad put his signatures C to D on Ex. 3 it, his presence and that after 10 to 12 days of the execution of agreement Ex. 3, he went at Mandal and took charge of the factory. It may be mentioned here that Ex. 1 is the list of articles etc. Defendant No. 1 has admitted his signatures on this list of the articles dated July 16, 1962. PW 1 Banwarilal and PW 2 Jamanalal have proved the writing and signatures of defendant No. 1 on list. 12. Letters Exs. 7/1, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were addressed to Ramkumar Morarka. All these letters except Ex. 7/1, are on the docket forms on which India Khandsari Works (Proprietor Ramkumar Morarka & Son; Private Ltd.)' are printed. These letters are in the handwriting of defendant No. 1 as proved by PW 1 Banwarilal and PW 2 Jankilal. They have also proved vouchers Exs 17 to 22, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 38 of the factory and they are signed by defendant No. 1 In these vouchers "proprietor Ramkumar Morarka & Sons Private Ltd." is printed. 13. Learned counsel, on the basis of the Director's report for 20th annul general meeting of M/s Ramkumar Morarka and Sons Pvt. Ltd. to the share-holders, which has been marked as Ex. A9, contended that it shows a debt of Rs. 13. Learned counsel, on the basis of the Director's report for 20th annul general meeting of M/s Ramkumar Morarka and Sons Pvt. Ltd. to the share-holders, which has been marked as Ex. A9, contended that it shows a debt of Rs. 1,20,500/- to the factory from the plaintiff company and this debt was written off as the factory had incurred heavy losses. On this basis, be urged that the plaintiff company was not the owner of the factory and Ex. A 9 shows the relationship of debtor & creditor between Ramkumar Morarka & Sons Private Ltd. and India Khandsari Works in the tear 1963-64. No attempt was made by defendant No. 1 to get an explanation from PW 4 R R. Jalan. He was not cross-examined on this points. From the statement of PW 7 Jagdish Prasad, it is clear that the amount of Rs. 1,20,200/- was written off as bad debts for income-tax purposes and that the factory stood in the name of Ramrichhpal Mirzamal Jalan in the registration office and in plaintiff's account books. This was so because the debt of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation was outstanding and it raised an objection. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the facts that the factory still stood in the name of Ramrichhpal Mirzamal Jalan and not in name of the plaintiff. company, are not of much consequence. The plaintiff-company became owner of the factory and defendant No. 1 treating and considering it as owner addressed the letters and sent the vouchers. 15. In view of the above. discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned District fudge was right when he held that the plaintiff company had become the owner of the factory whereby deciding issue No. 4 in favour of the plaintiff company. I confirm the finding of the learned District judge in this regard. 16. The next important question that now arises is whether it was settled in July, 1962 between the plaintiff company and defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff. I confirm the finding of the learned District judge in this regard. 16. The next important question that now arises is whether it was settled in July, 1962 between the plaintiff company and defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff. company would furnish the required capital, that defendant No. 1 would run the factory, that in case of profits, the plaintiff would pay to defendant No. 1 what ever amount the plaintiff- company thought proper for his labour, that in pursuance to this defendant No. 1 took charge of the factory from July 15, 1962 and it remained with him till August 13, 1963. These facts form the subject matter of issue No. 5. The learned District judge decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff company and against defendant No. 1. The relevant averments have been made in paras 4 and 8 of the plaint. In para 5, it has been stated that in pursuance of the agreement, defendant No 1 was given charge of the factory on July 15, 1962 and he was given other articles mentioned in the list 'A' with Rokar and Khata Bahis' and registers etc. In reply to this para, defendant No 1 has not said anything about the articles etc., which were mentioned in list W. In para 7 of the written statement, he has admitted that he was partner with R.R. Jalan in the factory, and as a partner, he was in possession of it and further in his capacity as a partner, has run it. In para 16 of the plaint, it was, inter alia, averred by the plaintiff that the possession of the factory was taken by PW 1 Banwarilal on August 13, 1963. In reply to this, defendants have stated in para 16 of the written statement that owner of the factory forcibly took possession of the factory along with the stores, machinery, account-books, Bahis papers and Rokar, which were lying in it. The terms and conditions of the partnership, alleged by defendant No. 1 are contained in para 31, and the explanation as to why the correspondence was done with the plaintiff-company at Bombay address is contained in para 44 of the written- statement. Ex. The terms and conditions of the partnership, alleged by defendant No. 1 are contained in para 31, and the explanation as to why the correspondence was done with the plaintiff-company at Bombay address is contained in para 44 of the written- statement. Ex. 1 is the list of the articles, machinery, stock etc., which were handed over to defendant No. 1 on July 15, 1962 by PW 3 Jamanalal, who was the Munim of the factory at the relevant t me. PW 1 Banwarilal has stated that the plaintiff-company's representative R.R. Patodia settled the appointment of defendant No. 1 as agent of the plaintiff-company for, he was anxious to work and he had requested him to procure some work for him. R.R. Patodia could not be produced as he was dead. This R.R. Patodia was Manager of the plaintiff company in Glass factory at Jaipur. So the settlement took place at Jaipur in July, 1962. 17. The letters Ex 7/1 dated February 28, 1962, Ex 11/1 dated June 2, 1963, Ex. 13 dated June 2, 1963, Ex. 14 dated August 1, 1962, Ex. 15 dated 31.8-1962 and Ex 16 dated August 20, 1962 are all written by defendant No. 1. These letters have been proved by PW 1 Banwarilal, who was an employee of the company in the year 1960 and PW 2, Jamnalal who was also a factory-employee. The accounts of the factory Ex 5 to Ex. 12 were also sent which were written by defendant No 2 as proved by PW 1 Banwarilal and PW 2 Jamnalal. Ex. 17 to Ex. 22, Ex. 26, 28, 29, 31 to 38 are vouchers of the factory in which it is written 'Proprietor Ramkumar Morarka & Sons'. Ex. 1 is a list of the articles, machinery, stocks etc. which were handed over to defendant No. 1 on July 16, 1962 by PW 2 Jamnalal, Munim of the factory. Defendant No. 1 his admitted that this list was signed by him. A perusal of para 34 of the written statement shows that according to defendant No. 1, the owner of factory forcibly took possession of it and turned him from it. It is significant, to note that according to defendant No. 1, he is still running the factory and Banwarilal did not take possession from him in 1963. A perusal of para 34 of the written statement shows that according to defendant No. 1, the owner of factory forcibly took possession of it and turned him from it. It is significant, to note that according to defendant No. 1, he is still running the factory and Banwarilal did not take possession from him in 1963. DW 3 Hajarimal has admitted that this factory is not run for the last 3-4 years and that he did not see Akbarkhan Chowkidar). Not a single receipt has been produced by DW 3 Hajarimal to show that he supplied sugar cane to this factory in the year 1964.65. the statement of DW 4 Mohanlal has rightly been not believed by the learned District judge as he failed to produce any receipt in regard to supply of sugar cane to the factory. The statement of defendant No. 1 is rendered false hen he stated that he was still running the factory as DW 5 Devilal has stated that defendant No. 1 lived on agriculture. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, placed reliance on Ex. A-1 to Ex A8, which are said to have been written by R.R. Patodia to defendant No 1-A perusal of these letters shows that they do not bear signatures of R.R. Patodia. There is no satisfactory evidence on record as held by the learned District judge to the effect that these letters were written by R.R Patodia. The case of the plaintiff-company is that R.R. Patodia was its representative. PW 4 R.R. Jalan, as stated above, has denied his ownership of the factory and further deposed that he transferred the ownership and control of it to the plaintiff-company. From the evidence of the plaintiff-company, it is clear that defendant No. 1 worked as agent of the plaintiff-company from July 16, 1962 to August 13, 1963. He worked so on the understanding that the plaintiff-company would pay him remuneration in case profits accreted in the factory. It cannot be lost sight of that a debtor not in possession of the factory would not enter into partnership. A perusal of letter Ex. A8, dated February 18, 1963 clearly shows that defendant No. 1 was not the partner as it is written." vkius fy[kk lhj Mkyus dh txg ugh gS bldk bykt esjs ikl cEcbZ esa gS D;k 19. A perusal of letter Ex. A8, dated February 18, 1963 clearly shows that defendant No. 1 was not the partner as it is written." vkius fy[kk lhj Mkyus dh txg ugh gS bldk bykt esjs ikl cEcbZ esa gS D;k 19. Under Section 213 of the Contract Act, an agent is bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand. 20. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the learned District Judge was right when he decided issue No 5 in favour of the plaintiff company and against defendant No. 1. 21. According to defendants, the company had no right to file the suit and as such Banwarilal could not institute it. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in a suit by a company under the provision of Order 29, Rule 1, the plaint is required to be signed and verified on behalf of the company by the Secretary or by any Director or other principal officer of the company who is able to depose to the facts of the case and since P.W. 1 Banwarilal did not hold any of the capacity, the suit instituted by him was not maintainable The plaint as presented on October 20, 1964. It was pointed cut in the report dated October 21, 1964 that the plaint was signed Banwarilal Nathuram, it is not clear who is that person and what capacity he has in the suit. It appears that on October 27, 1964, it was written at the proper place in the plaint that Banwarilal Nathuram is Mukhtiar khas of the plaintiff-company & the suit is being instituted through him in his capacity as Mukhtiar khas of the plaintiff-company. Ex 4 is the document dated September 2, 1964 signed by the Director of the plaintiff-company by which he nominated & constituted Banwarilal as the true & lawful attorney of the plaintiff-company, which was held by me as the owner of the factory. 22. Order 29, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, as it stood then, reads as under: "R 1. Ex 4 is the document dated September 2, 1964 signed by the Director of the plaintiff-company by which he nominated & constituted Banwarilal as the true & lawful attorney of the plaintiff-company, which was held by me as the owner of the factory. 22. Order 29, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, as it stood then, reads as under: "R 1. In suit by or against a Corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation by the Secretary or by any Director or other principal officer of the Corporation, who is able to depose to the facts of the case." The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaint should have been signed by the Secretary or Director or any other principal officer of the company and as Banwarilal, at the relevant time, did not hold any such capacity, the plaint cannot be said to be duly signed and verified. He further submitted that even on the basis of the document Ex. 4, as it is not a general power of attorney, Banwarilal could not institute the suit. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 were not applicable where provisions of Order 29, Rule 1 are attracted. Banwarilal has entered the witness box as PW 1. He has proved the document Ex. 4. He has stated that Mahavir Prasad, had signed A to B in his presence. P.W. 7 Jagdish Prasad has also stated that Mahavir Prasad, Managing Director signed Ex. 4 in his presence. He (P W. 1 Banwarilal) has further stated that he was managing and looking after the factory at Mandal and that he was the person who, got appointed defendant No. 1 as an agent. In these circumstances Banwarilal was the person acquainted with the facts of the case, and, therefore he could sign and verify the plaint as duly authorised person. Order 6 and Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code provides that pleading should be signed by the party and his pleader (if any). Order 6 and Rule 15 Civil Procedure Code deals with verification of pleadings. Order 6 and Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code provides that pleading should be signed by the party and his pleader (if any). Order 6 and Rule 15 Civil Procedure Code deals with verification of pleadings. Sub rule (1) of rules 15 of Order 6, Civil Procedure Code lays down that every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. Section 99 Civil Procedure Code provides that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded in appeal on account of any error, defect or irregularity in any proceeding in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. Along with the plaints power of attorney Ex. 4 was filed. 23. In view of the provisions contained in Order 6 and Rules 14 and 15, the plaint has been properly signed and verified by P.W. I Banwarilal, who was acquainted with the facts of the case. 24. In these circumstances, the next question that arises is whether the provisions of Order 6 and Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code are not to the exclusion of the provisions of Order 29 Rule 1. 25. The provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 and Order 29, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code came to be examined in Osborne Garret Co v. Abdulla, AIR 1931 Sind 178 . After referring to Delhi and London Bank Ltd. v. Oldhim, ILT XXI Cal. 60 , Messrs Osborne Garrett & Co v. Raisijothabhoy, AIR 1927 Sind 263 and Calico Printers Association Ltd v. A.A.. Karim Brother, AIR 1930 Bom. 566 , Milne, J C., has observed as under : "For the reasons stated therein that the provisions of Order 29, Rule 1 are permissive and do not exclude the operation of Order 6, Rule 14, in a proper case. I am of opinion that the plaint as originally presented was properly signed and that the order of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner mulcting the plaintiffs in the costs of three hearings should be set aside." Mehta, A. J. C., observed as under : "To my mind, Order 29, Rule 1 is merely indicative of some of the modes in which a Corporation may ordinarily be represented in a suit. It is by no means exhaustive. Indeed I cannot imagine any reason why it may be presumed that the legislature intended it to be restrictive of the wider scope allowed by Order 6 and Rule 14 to "a party to a suit" which terms would include even a Corporation ...............it would practically speaking be tantamount denying relief on an urgent nature in suits like the one we are concerned with in this case to Corporations who have their places of business situated in distant foreign countries &. have no Secretary or Director or other principal officer in India " The provisions of Order 29, Rule l were also examined by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in All India Reporter Ltd. v. Ramchandra, AIR 1951 Bom. 292 . In that case, after considering various authorities, it was laid down that in the case of companies the plaint can be signed by either a Secretary or a Director or a Director or other principal officer under Order 29, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, or by any person duly authorised by the company under Order 6, Rule 14 and that the words "duly authorised" in Order 6, Rule 14, need not be restricted to mean authorised by proper written authority or by power of attorney. It is, there- fore, clear that Order 29, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code is permissive and does not exclude Order 6, Rule 14. From the statement of P.W. 1 Banwarilal, it is clear that he was the person, who got defendant No. 1 appointed as agent arid that he was given power of attorney by document Ex 4 to institute the suit. I, therefore, confirm the finding of the learned District judge that P.W. 1 Banwari Lal was duly authorised person to sign the plaint and institute the suit against defendant No. 1 on behalf of the plaintiff company. Issue No. 2 was, thus, rightly decided by the learned District Judge in favour of the plaintiff. 26. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent did not challenge the finding regarding issue No. 7 before me. 27. The learned District Judge was, therefore, right in passing the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff-principal and against defendant No. 1 agent for rendition of accounts. 28. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal has no force and it is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed with costs. *******