( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25/4/2006 in. A. No. 419 of 2006 in O. S. No. 108 of 2003 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar district. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit, which was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of rs. 1,62,817. 00 allegedly due from the defendants under a chit transaction. A written statement was filed contesting the suit claim and after issues were settled, the Assistant manager of the plaintiff company got himself examined as P. W. 1. While the suit was coming up for the evidence of defendants, LA. No. 419 of 2006 was filed by the defendants under Order XVI Rule 21 CPC with a prayer to summon the Managing Director of the plaintiff company namely A. Krishna Murthy to give evidence before the Court to prove the existence of the plaintiff-company. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 25/4/2006 holding that in the absence of any plea in the written statement, it is not open to the defendants to seek a direction to summon the Managing director of the plaintiff company. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since summoning the Managing Director of the plaintiff-company is essential to decide the competency of the person who represented the plaintiff- company styling himself as Assistant Manager, the court below committed grave error in rejecting the application of the defendants. ( 5 ) THOUGH the Court below observed that the defendants failed to raise any objection in the written statement as to the authorization claimed by the Assistant Manager to represent the plaintiff-company, as can be seen from para-2 of the written statement there is a specific plea that the Assistant manager is not competent person to file the suit. However, as rightly held by the Court below since the burden of proof is on the plaintiff-company to establish the valid institution of the suit to entitle it to a decree as prayed for, it is not necessary to summon the Managing Director of the plaintiff- company at the instance of the defendants. However, as rightly held by the Court below since the burden of proof is on the plaintiff-company to establish the valid institution of the suit to entitle it to a decree as prayed for, it is not necessary to summon the Managing Director of the plaintiff- company at the instance of the defendants. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances, though the order under Revision cannot be held to be erroneous on merits, having regard to the rival claim made by the parties, I am of the view that the court below ought to have framed a specific issue as to the competency of the Assistant manager to represent the plaintiff-company. Since the said question relates to the validity of the institution of suit itself on which the determination of the case depends, it shall form subject of a definite issue as required under Order 14 Rule 1 of C. P. C. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, while confirming the order under Revision, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to frame a specific issue as to the competency of the Assistant Manager - g. Ramu to file the suit and to record a finding thereon on the basis of the evidence produced by both the parties while deciding the suit. No costs. .