JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the question of law involved in this appeal is “whether the suit is filed by a duly authorised person?” 2. The defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court as the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. 3. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.12325.44 paisa on account of damages to truck No.HRL 1168 as a result of accident with truck No.HPK 8079 owned by defendant No.1 and driven by Defendant No.2. 4. The trial Court framed as many as six issues and while deciding issue No.4 dismissed the suit. It was held that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor has got any right in the suit property, therefore, could not maintain the suit. The Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on issue No.4 and decreed the suit. Thus, the entire controversy revolves by the issue as to whether the suit is properly filed by an authorised person. The trial Court while deciding issue No.4 against the plaintiff held that truck HRL 1168 was in the name of Executive Engineer, S&T, Sub Division, Beas Project, Kurukshetra as per document on record and no document has been brought on record that the Union of India was authorized to claim the damages. Nothing was also brought on record that the Chief Engineer/Electrical Beas Project, Chandigarh was duly authorised to file the present suit. However, the Appellate Court had held that the truck No.HRL 1168 was registered in the name of Executive Engineer, PLC, Kurukshetra but the document exhibited on the file would show that the Executive Engineer, in whose name the aforesaid truck stands registered, is also working in the department under the Beas Project. 5. It is pertinent to mention that notice in this appeal was issued on 17.8.1987 on the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the suit is not filed by duly authorised person of the Union of India. Later on, on 19.10.1987, the following order was passed: - “At the request of Mrs. Anand, to enable her to file a letter of authority authorizing the Chief Engineer to file suits on behalf of Union of India, the case is adjourned to 2nd November, 1987.” 6. Later on, on 19.10.1987, the following order was passed: - “At the request of Mrs. Anand, to enable her to file a letter of authority authorizing the Chief Engineer to file suits on behalf of Union of India, the case is adjourned to 2nd November, 1987.” 6. Thereafter, another order was passed on 2.11.1987 to the effect that “letter of authority has not been filed. Admitted”. The appellants also filed CM No.3077-C-1989 in which notice was issued and ultimately in that application execution of the impugned decree was stayed on 12.1.1990. The respondent filed application bearing CM No.2817-C-1995 under Section 151 of the CPC for vacating the stay order dated 12.1.1990 but the said application was dismissed on 10.11.1995. There was another application bearing CM No.3549-C-1990 for bringing on record the legal heirs of Hans Raj, which was allowed on 24.4.1991 but on 12.2.2014, one of the appellant, namely, Beli Ram, appeared in-person and submitted that he does not have financial capacity to engage an Advocate of his own and prayed for providing the service of an Advocate from the panel of Legal Aid Counsels of the High Court. Accordingly, Ms.Bindu Goel, Advocate, was appointed as an Advocate on his behalf to pursue his case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per Order 27 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short ‘the CPC’], in any suit by or against the Government, the plaint or written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government, may, by general or special order, appoint in this behalf, and shall be verified by any person whom the Government may so appoint and who is acquainted with the facts of the case. Both the issues, before the Courts below, on which there is a divergent view that the suit having been filed by duly authorised person, could have been sought out when the learned counsel for the respondent had taken time from the Court on 19.10.1987 to file a letter of authority to file suit on behalf of Union of India and when she failed to produce the letter of authority on 2.11.1987, the appeal was admitted, meaning thereby the respondents/plaintiff were required to file letter of authority authorizing the Chief Engineer to file suit on behalf of Union of India but despite the pendency of this appeal since 1987, no effort was made on behalf of the respondents to produce the said letter of authority on record. 8. Thus, in the absence of letter of authority in favour of the Chief Engineer to file suit on behalf of Union of India, the present suit filed has rightly been dismissed on the ground that it has not been filed by duly authorised person. 9. In view thereof, I fully agree with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants, the present appeal is allowed, the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are thus hereby reversed and that of the trial Court are restored. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------