JUDGMENT The suit filed by the appellant bank -in the trial Court has been rejected on the short ground that it was not filed in accordance with the provisions of Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and the pleadings and the verification clause of the plaint were not duly signed by any authorised officer of the bank. The learned counsel appearing for the bank invited attention of this Court to the oral evidence of the A. C. Kulshrcshtha (PW 1), who appeared as the manager of Allahabad Bank, City Branch, Jabalpur and deposed that Shri A. L. Pahawa, the then Branch Manager, from whom he took charge, was the duly authorised officer of the bank to sign the pleadings and file the suit. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank contends that in terms of Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code Shri A. L. Pahawa being the principal officer of the City Branch of the bank at Jabalpur could verify the pleadings. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 placed reliance on the provision contained in section 19.2 (g) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition etc.) Act, 1970. The contention advanced is that in view of the above provision, the provision of Order 29, Rule 1 of the CPC will have no application to the suits by Banking Companies. It is argued that no document of authorisation in favour of the then Branch Manager A. L. Pahawa was produced in evidence before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial Court was wholly justified in rejecting the suit on the ground that the plaint was not duly signed and verified by an authoriscd officer, on behalf of the Bank. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, before me and on perusal of the judgment under appeal, in my opinion, the appellant bank could not have been non-suited on the ground of want of proof of authorisation for signing the plaint by the then Branch Manager Shri A. L. Pahawa. The provision of Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code reads as under : Subscription and verification of pleading. 1. The provision of Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code reads as under : Subscription and verification of pleading. 1. In suits 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 be depose to the facts of the case." It is clear from the above provision that the principal officer of the bank who is able to depose to the facts of the case, can sign the peadings and verification clause. The provisions of section 19. (1) & 2 (g) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition, etc.) Act, 1970 read as under: "19. Power to make regulations - (1) The Board of Directors of a corresponding new bank may, after consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government (by notification in Official Gazette), make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or any scheme made thereunder, to provide for all matters for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :-(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) the conduct and defence of legal proceedings by or against the corresponding new bank and the manner of signing pleadings." The above section authorises framing of regulations on the subject of conduct and defence of legal proceedings by or against the bank. No regulations referable to section 19 (2) (g) have been brought to the notice of this Court. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that the provisions of Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code shall have no application to the present suit. The learned counsel for the respondents is no doubt right in submitting that the bank should have produced some documentary evidence showing authorisation in favour of the then Branch Manager Shri A L. Pahawa. In our opinion, however, this was not such a fatal defect warranting dismissal of the suit itself. In the oral evidence of the Branch Manager Shri AC. In our opinion, however, this was not such a fatal defect warranting dismissal of the suit itself. In the oral evidence of the Branch Manager Shri AC. Kulshreshta (PW 1), who succeeded Shri A L. Pahawa, it has been clearly stated that by virtue of his office, Shri Pahawa was the duly authoriscd officer to sign the pleadings and verify the plaint. In cross-examination of the said witness it could not be seriously disputed that Shri A L. Pahawa was the Branch Manager of the City Branch and he had signed the plaint and verification caluse in that capacity. Non-production, therefore, of any document, showing authorisation by the bank in favour of Shri A L. Pahawa could not merit dismissal of the suit. Under the provisions of Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code, which prima facie apply, even in a suit filed by the bank, the principal officer of the bank who is able to depose to the facts of the case, was fully authorised to sign the pleadings and the verification clause of the plaint. Consequently the judgment and decree dated 27th July, 1987 of the trial Court is hereby set aside. Since the other issues have not been decided on merits with regards to claim for recovery of loan, I remand the matter to the trial Court for decision of all the remaining issues framed in the case, in accordance with law. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.