JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—Both the appeals are arising out of the order/s passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra dated 24th January, 2008 in Original Suit No. 225 of 2007 and 23 of 2007, by which the suits have been dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as the ‘C.P.C.’) upon accepting the objection/s on the part of the respondents. Out of aforesaid two orders, impugned in the present appeals, only difference is in one of such orders it has been held that the argument of the plaintiff therein has no force to say that the case is not covered under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the C.P.C. However, both the appeals are taken together for analogous hearing on informal papers, to which neither of the parties have any objection. 2. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals, contended that two suits have been filed by the appellant when one suit has been filed by the defendants in the Court below. Both of their suits are dismissed only on the ground that the power of attorney/s, as executed by the plaintiff-company in favour of one Sri Amit Garg through the Chairman & Managing Director, cannot authorize such person to institute the suit since it/those is/are not registered. Court below is apparently prejudiced which necessitates transfer of the case. 3. So far as merit of the appeals are concerned, he contended that by a power of attorney dated 26th September, 2005, the Chairman & Managing Director was authorised on behalf of the company to act in this behalf inclusive of power to institute, defend and prosecute, enforce or resist any suit or other actions and proceedings, appeals in any Court anywhere within its civil, criminal and other jurisdictions etc. inclusive of power of delegation. Clause-19 of such power of attorney speaks as follows : “From time to time to substitute and appoint any person or persons to act under or in the place of the said Attorney in respect of all or any of the matters and to revoke every such substitution at pleasure and appoint others.” 4. inclusive of power of delegation. Clause-19 of such power of attorney speaks as follows : “From time to time to substitute and appoint any person or persons to act under or in the place of the said Attorney in respect of all or any of the matters and to revoke every such substitution at pleasure and appoint others.” 4. At the end of such power of attorney it says as follows : “AND the Company hereby ratifies and confirms and agrees to ratify and confirm hereafter all and whatsoever the said Attorney or his substitute or substitutes shall lawfully do or cause to be done in or about the premise by virtue of these presents and declare that these presents shall at all times be conclusively binding in favour of third parties, who have not received notice of revocation of this power.” Said Sri Amit Garg was appointed to be true and lawful attorney of the company by virtue of and in exercise of the power given to said Chairman & Managing Director to do the needful by a further power of attorney dated 30th October, 2005. One of the important clause of such power of attorney is as follows : “To institute, prosecute, enforce, defend, answer or oppose all actions and other legal proceedings and demands touching any of the matters aforesaid or any other matters in which the Company is now or may hereafter be interested or concerned and also to refer to arbitration, submit to judgment or become non-suited in any such action or proceedings as aforesaid and for such purpose to appear before any Judges, Magistrates, Consuls or other Officers in any Court or Consulate.” 5. Both the power of attorneys are notarized power of attorneys. 6. It appears from Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that in case of filing of power of attorney, it should have some presumptive value. Therefore, we require to test the essence of Section 85 hereunder : “85. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney.—The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated.” 7. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 gives a list of documents, which are compulsorily registrable. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 gives a list of documents, which are compulsorily registrable. No such provision is available in such section which speaks that a power of attorney is compulsorily registrable. 8. According to Mr. Sudhir Chandra, the principles of ‘agent’ as under Sections 182, 190 and 191 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are applicable in this case particularly in view of Clause 19 of the original power of attorney. 9. Mr. Chandra cited a judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 3 , United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others, to establish that it is not disputed that a company or corporation can sue and be sued in its own name. As a company is a juristic entity, it is obvious that a person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person under Order XXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C. can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example, by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney having been executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be expressed or implied. The Court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officers. In AIR 2006 SC 269 , Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another, the Supreme Court held, in a similar circumstance, that there is no scope of automatic rejection of any proceeding without affording an opportunity to the person concerned to rectify the defect. Procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made as a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. Procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made as a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. By citing a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court reported in 2008 (36) PTC 210 (Del.)(DB) Eureka Forbes Ltd. and another v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Mr. Chandra said that the Division Bench held in a preliminary objection based on Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. the averments made in the petition have to be assumed to be true. The Court has then to see whether said averments disclose a cause of action or triable issue. 10. Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, drawn our attention to Order XXIX Rule 1 of the C.P.C., which speaks as follows : “1. Subscription and verification of pleading.—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 liable to depose to the facts of the case.” 11. By showing such provision and relying upon the persuasive value of a Single Bench judgment of Delhi High Court reported in AIR 1991 Del 25 , M/s. Nibro Limited v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., he stated that this provision only authorises a person to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation but does not authorise to institute suit on behalf of the corporation. He said that unless a power to institute a suit is specifically conferred on a particular Director, he has no authority to institute a suit on behalf of the company. Needless to say that such a power can be conferred by the Board of Directors only by passing a resolution in this regard. The question of authority to institute a suit on behalf of the company is not a technical matter. It has far reaching effects. It often affects policy and finances of the company. Therefore, there is no wrong on the part of the Court below in dismissing the suits under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., which the Court below is otherwise competent to pass when found from the statement in the plaint that the same is barred by any law. 12. It often affects policy and finances of the company. Therefore, there is no wrong on the part of the Court below in dismissing the suits under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., which the Court below is otherwise competent to pass when found from the statement in the plaint that the same is barred by any law. 12. Upon considering the pros and cons of the matter we are of the view that the learned Judge of the Court below has proceeded in a wrong premises and with hot-haste. According to us, a power of attorney or an affidavit of such nature is only required to prima facie satisfy the Court that a company or corporation or a body corporate has presumably proceeded with the suit under its seal and signature. It has nothing to do with the registration of the document unless it is compulsorily registrable. Persuasive value of M/s. Nibro Ltd. (supra) cannot pursue us. There is a thiner line in between authorization to sign and verify the pleadings, and to institute a suit on behalf of the corporation, company or a body corporate. Whenever a person is authorized to sign and verify the pleadings other than verification of plaint, written statement, memorandum of appeal, etc., it is doing so by filing affidavit in support of such contentions. Therefore, it stands on a better position than ordinary verification. But a person when verifies the plaint, written statement or memorandum of appeal, it is a verification simplicitor, meaning thereby that the verification part is also to be evidently proved unlike an affidavit, which itself is an evidence. Hence, authorization to institute a suit stands in the lower side than putting signature and verifying a pleading by way of an affidavit. On the other hand, signature and verification of the pleading of a plaint cannot be made for the sake of signature and verification alone but for the purpose of filing of the same before the Court either by him or by his learned Advocate. As soon as it is filed, the same will be treated to be institution of such proceeding by the person who has signed and verified. It is automatic. Institution of suit and right to institute the suit are distinct and different. The argument of Mr. As soon as it is filed, the same will be treated to be institution of such proceeding by the person who has signed and verified. It is automatic. Institution of suit and right to institute the suit are distinct and different. The argument of Mr. Shashi Nandan restricted only to the first part of Order XXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C. but not to the last part. If the suit is proceeded and the evidence is led and if any of the defendants want to challenge the verification of the plaint, he can call the deponent as witness for the purpose of examination. But Court cannot prevent anyone from instituting a suit when his authority is apparently satisfactory. No body will be prevented from enforcing his legal right. It is a gross mistake on the part of the Court below to construe that the power of attorney should be registered and then only the suit can be instituted by a representative of the company or corporation. Moreover justification of filing the plaint by the authorised representative of the corporation or company will be considered from the practical point of view. If the Court below is not happy, it could have called upon the company to file an affidavit of competency, which is desirable under such circumstances, but not outright rejection of the plaint. Therefore, from any angle the order/s impugned appear to be perverse in nature. Thus, in totality the orders impugned in both the appeals cannot be sustained. Hence, the orders dated 24th January, 2008 passed by the Court below in the above referred suits, impugned in the instant appeals, are set aside. Thus, both the appeals are allowed without imposing any cost. 13. The suits will be heard as expeditiously as possible. In case of any displeasure of the parties about particular Court, it is open for them to approach the learned District Judge, who is administrative head of the District, for transferring the matters from one Court to other but we should not judicially encroach upon such field to maintain the judicial restraint. Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—I agree. ————