JUDGMENT Ritu Tagore, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings returned against him, appellant-plaintiff has preferred this regular second appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.01.1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, affirming and upholding the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1995 passed by learned Senior Sub- Judge, Jagadhri. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original status in the suit. 3. Appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 17,500/- against the defendant-M/s Bhagat Ram, Sanjay Kumar, Yamuna Nagar Road, Jagadhri, inter-alia pleading that plaintiff is a body corporate, which instituted the suit through Sh. D.N.Arora, Manager of Jagadhri Branch of Corporation. The defendant-firm had been purchasing cattle feed from the plaintiff, since July, 1981. On 17.02.1983, the defendant firm purchased goods valuing Rs. 12,126/- through Bill No. 32551 and did not make the payment despite repeated reminders and service of notices. 4. After adjusting Rs. 1,025/- the security amount and the interest amount of Rs. 145/-, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 17,500/-. Defendant-firm upon notice, filed written statement, denied the authority of Sh. D.N. Arora to file the suit and also disputed its liability to pay the claimed amount. The defendant pleaded a upto date payment of all the bills, for which the goods were received. It was pleaded that an amount of Rs. 1,025/- was wrongly adjusted by the plaintiff-corporation. 5. The stand taken in written statement was controverted in the replication, filed by the plaintiff. 6. Since the parties were at variance, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Sh. A.D.Malik is empowered and authorised to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff ?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 17, 500/- as alleged in para no.2 and 3 of the plaint? OPP. 3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest if so at what rate and to what extent ? OPP. 4. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs ? OPD. 5. Relief. 7. On appraisal of evidence led by the parties, learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that Sh. D.N. Arora, had no authority to file the suit and plaintiff-corporation, failed to substantiate its claim against the defendant-firm. OPP. 4. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs ? OPD. 5. Relief. 7. On appraisal of evidence led by the parties, learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that Sh. D.N. Arora, had no authority to file the suit and plaintiff-corporation, failed to substantiate its claim against the defendant-firm. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dimissed by the learned Appellate Court, affirming the findings of the learned trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the learned Courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The inferences and conclusions drawn by the learned Courts below, are wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law being based on mistaken appreciation of facts and misapplication of law with regard to acceptance of a ledger maintained in the ordinary course of business, showing the credit and debits entries therein, as evidence. Further, the Managing Director had full authority to delegate his power, and in present case, had delegated the authority to District Manager for taking appropriate action in effecting the recovery from the defendant-firm. Both the Courts below completely failed to appreciate the correct position of law, while assessing the evidence. A prayer is made to reappraise the evidence, which fully substantiate the case of the plaintiff, and to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgments of the Courts below. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his valuable assistance. 10. Learned Courts below, on marshaling of the evidence presented on record, gave a categoric findings that Board of Directors of the plaintiff had authorized the Managing Director of the plaintiff-Corporation, to institute and defend the suit vide resolution dated 29.09.1989 (Ex.P5); whereas the suit was filed on 14.02.1986, much prior to the passing of the resolution Mark J. The copy of letter from the Managing Director to Sh. D.N. Arora, an Assistant Engineer, Farmers Service Centre, Jagadhri, authorizing him to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Corporation is dated 10.06.1986. 11. Based on the above evidence, the learned Courts below categorically observed that Sh. D.N. Arora, who presented the suit on 14.02.1986, had no authority to file the suit. Order XXIX Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') deals with suits by or against the Corporation. 11. Based on the above evidence, the learned Courts below categorically observed that Sh. D.N. Arora, who presented the suit on 14.02.1986, had no authority to file the suit. Order XXIX Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') deals with suits by or against the Corporation. Rule 1 Order XXIX CPC, provides that any pleadings may be signed and verified on behalf of corporation, by the Secretary or by any Directors or the Principal Officer of the Corporation, who is able to depose to the facts of the case. The evidence, as appeared on record and discussed above, have failed to establish that Sh. D.N.Arora was the Principal Officer of the Corporation and was duly authorized to file the suit. The power was conferred upon him on 29.09.1989 vide resolution Mark H and mentioned in letter Ex.P5. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any misreading of the evidence by the learned Courts while arriving at such finding. 12. Further, learned Appellate Court rightly declined the request of the appellant/plaintiff, permitting it to present certain resolutions of prior period, in the additional evidence, holding that they were already in existence and in possession of the plaintiff-Corporation before filing of the suit. The learned Appellate Court found that plaintiff did not exercise due deligence in prosecuting its case. Also, observed that the additional evidence would not have helped the appellant, when its claim against the defendant-firm had not been proved, and consequently found no ground to allow application for additional evidence. 13. It has been observed by the learned Courts below that entries of ledger presented on record by the plaintiff were not duly proved nor were supported by any corresponding evidence. Consequently, they were held not sufficient to fasten the liability upon the defendant. The learned Courts below discussed the documentary evidence Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 adduced on the record by the plaintiff-firm and observed that none of these documents relate to the purchase of goods and also does not establish non-payment of the goods recevied. The notice Ex.P2 was found contrary to the stand of the plaintiff taken in the suit. Mark-B indicated that defendant-firm purchased goods worth Rs. 12,126/- on 17.02.1983 through Bill No.32551 and paid Rs. 12,690/- to the plaintiff-Corporation. On the contrary, defendant placed the copies of their statements of accounts Ex.D1 to Ex.D3, which were admitted by Mr. The notice Ex.P2 was found contrary to the stand of the plaintiff taken in the suit. Mark-B indicated that defendant-firm purchased goods worth Rs. 12,126/- on 17.02.1983 through Bill No.32551 and paid Rs. 12,690/- to the plaintiff-Corporation. On the contrary, defendant placed the copies of their statements of accounts Ex.D1 to Ex.D3, which were admitted by Mr. B.N.Munjal (PW-3), rebutting the version of the plaintiff. Learned Appellate Court noted the above evidence and concluded the payment of Rs. 12,126/- of Bill No.32551 made by cheque on 08.03.1983 and by cash on 09.03.1983. Based on the evidence, learned Courts below, held that plaintiff-firm failed to substantiate its claim of recovery against the defendant-firm. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff failed to point out any evidence controverting the observations of the Courts below, based on the detailed discussion of the evidence. 14. All these factors taken together, makes no ground to form a different opinion to bring the findings of the learned Courts below within the realm of perversity. 15. No other point was raised or pressed. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any illegality or perversity, in the concurrent findings, which are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. No ground for interference is made out much less involvement of any substantial question of law. 17. Ex-Consequenti, there is no merit in the appeal and is, hereby, dismissed. 18. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.