Sui Northern Gas Pipe Line Limited through its General Manager and others Vs Shahid Siraj and another

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

[JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT]

C.R. No.1040-P/2022

Sui Northern Gas Pipe Line Limited through its General Manager and others ..............Petitioners Vs

Shahid Siraj and another .... .............Respondents Present: Mr. Asad Jan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Yasir Khattak, Advocate, for the respondents.

Date of hearing: 30.03.2026

JU D G M EN T

MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J.- Through this petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Takht Bhai Mardan dated 18.10.2022, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioners was dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC and thereby maintained the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 14.12.2025, who vide the same had decreed the suit of respondents / plaintiffs.

2.Precisely the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the respondents / plaintiffs filed a suit against the present petitioners vide which they have challenged the correctness of the monthly bill issued for the month of October, 2010 for the sum of Rs. 22,370,270/- and for declaring it as illegal, against the facts and is thus liable to cancellation.

They have also prayed for issuance of direction to the petitioners then defendants not to disconnect their sui gas supply. When the petitioners / defendants were summoned, they filed their written statement and thus in view of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as eight (08) issues and the parties were required to produce their pro and contra evidence and thereafter the said suit was decreed vide one of the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.2015. The aforesaid judgment and decree was challenged by the present petitioners before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Takht Bhai, by filing an appeal, however, the same has been dismissed not on merits rather only on the ground that the petitioners had contested the suit and have filed the said appeal without obtaining any proper resolution/authority of the Board of

petitioners’ company as required under Order XXIX Rule 1 of The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter is to be referred as “CPC”) vide second impugned judgment and decree dated 18.10.2022, hence the instant petition.

3.Arguments heard and record perused.

4.During the course of augments, the main emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioners (SNGPL) was firstly that the respondents-plaintiffs had not arrayed the petitioners’ company i.e. SNGPL in their suit as defendants, therefore, the very suit was not maintainable and secondly that the Board of the petitioners’ company in its 565th meeting has passed a Resolution dated 31.12.2020 and as such the learned Appeal Court has wrongly dismissed their appeal on the ground of being incompetently filed and requested that the judgment and decree of learned Appeal Court may be set aside and the case may be remanded back to it for its decision on merits of the case.

5.As against this, the learned counsel representing the respondents-plaintiffs stated that the petitioners’ company had itself joined the proceedings by filing an amended / better written

statement, then in appeal before the Appeal Court and even this revision petition by itself, therefore, the first objection of petitioners’ counsel is misconceived. It was further contended that since the written statement as well as the appeal had been filed by an unauthorized and incompetent person on behalf of the petitioners’ company, therefore, the petitioners had rightly been non-suited by the trial court and then its appeal too has rightly been dismissed by the Appeal Court.

6.Keeping insight the aforesaid submission as submitted by both the learned counsel for the parties, now this court will proceed to analyze the legal and factual impacts of these grounds on merits of this case. The record would show that the instant suit was filed by the respondents / plaintiffs on 06.12.2010, in which the defendants therein i.e. General Manager Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Ltd. etc. had submitted their written statement on 21.01.2011, however, during the pendency of the trial proceedings, the petitioners’ company submitted an application to the effect that it may be allowed to file an amended written statement which its application was allowed by the learned trial court and as such “SNGPL

through its General Manager Sui Gas Office Phase-V Hayatabad, Peshawar” had submitted the written statement on 03.03.2015. The aforesaid written statement would manifestly show that the same have been filed on behalf of “SNGPL through its General Manager”. The record would further show that when the instant suit after a due contest was decreed in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2015, then the present petitioners’ company had itself challenged the said judgment and decree before the Appeal court. The memo of appeal filed on 07.01.2016 would also show that the same has also been filed by the company namely, “SNGPL through its General Manager”. Similarly, before this Court the instant revision petition has also been filed by the “SNGPL through its General Manager”. In view of the above, the first objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the company has not been arrayed as defendants in the plaint is totally misconceived as if the respondents-plaintiffs had not impleaded the SNGPL in their suit, however, subsequently, it by itself has come forward and has filed the written statement in the instant suit.

Similarly, it has also filed its appeal against the judgment and decree of trial court before the Appeal Court, therefore, the first objection of the learned counsel representing the petitioners’ company could not be appreciated in its favour.

7.As far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that non-filing of the Board Resolution with the written statement or at the time of filing an appeal would not be fatal as any act done by any person on behalf of the company could be rectified retrospectively and as such the learned Appeal Court has wrongly non-suited the petitioners on the ground of non-compliance of Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC is concerned, the same too is totally misconceived as it is part of the record that the petitioners’ company had submitted its written statement on 03.03.2015 and it has filed the memo of appeal on 09.01.2016, however, on the available record, neither there is any resolution of the board of the petitioners’ company to the effect that by then as to who it has authorized for filing the written statement or for the memo of appeal nor there is any resolution of the Board vide which it has owned or rectified the said acts of that unknown person as the

“written statement” and “memo of appeal” are signed by its counsel namely, Shahid Ali, Advocate only, therefore, on the face of record, the same were filed by an unauthorized person and as such the same were filed incompetently.

8.During the course of arguments, one of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that if the written statement and the memo of appeal had filed by an unauthorized person, even then the said omission could be rectified retrospectively and in this regard, he heavily relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case titled “Rana Basit Rice Mills Private Limited .VS. Shaheen Insurance Company and another” reported as 2021 SCMR1413 and in this regard made reference to the resolution of petitioners’ board dated 31.12.2020, available on Page-106 of the instant petition. The said resolution dated 31.12.2020, being relevant for the present controversy is reproduced below:-

The aforesaid resolution on the face of it would show that through the same one Syed Ali Javed Hamdani was appointed as the Managing Director of the petitioners’ company and that too for a period of three years commencing from 31.12.2020 upto 31.12.2023. The said resolution further resolved that the two Directors were authorized to sign the General Power of Attorney on behalf of the company. The petitioners have then annexed a

General Power of Attorney dated 19.1.2021 (available on page-107) which would show that the two Directors have executed a General Power of Attorney in favor of the said newly appointed Managing Director namely, Syed Ali Javed Hamdani, as "Attorney" on behalf of the company.

The petitioners have also annexed another General Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2021 vide which the said attorney namely Syed Ali Javed Hamdani has further delegated his authority to one Waqas Ullah Shinwari, Regional Manager, SNGPL to institute and defend Company in suits, appeal, petitions etc. and through the said power of attorney, the said Syed Ali Javed Hamdani has also ratified and confirmed the acts done by the said attorney namely, Waqas Ullah Shinwari prior to the execution of the Power of Attorney, however, such belated exercise would be of no benefit for the petitioners as on one hand the said Syed Ali Javed Hamdani was himself an "attorney" appointed by the two Directors of the petitioners’ company as per the board decision dated 31.12.2020 and though he had been conferred with an authority to delegate his authority to any other Advocate / Mukhtar etc. and by exercising the said

authority he has further delegated his power to another attorney namely, Waqas Ullah Shinwari, however, the said Waqas Ullah Shinwari has neither signed nor verified the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioners’ company on 03.03.2015 and the memo of appeal filed on 09.01.2016 rather both these documents are shown to have been signed by one Shahid Ali, Advocate. Similarly, even before this court, a power of attorney has been shown executed by a Regional Manager SNGPL Mardan Region without disclosing his name to show that whether it is the same Waqas Ullah Shinwari to whom an authority was delegated or not and further even if this was the same Regional Manager but again the affidavit appended with this revision petition is signed by one Muhammad Yar Khan, Billing Officer Mardan Region, who is an alien to the instant proceedings and thus it can safely be concluded that neither the written statement nor the memo of appeal nor the instant Revision petition has filed/signed by any of the aforesaid authorized agents of the Company.

9.It would not be out of place to mention here that suits by or against a corporation / company /

juristic person, being a separate and distinct entity as against a natural person, it is to be sued or if such company intends to initiate any legal proceedings, then for both these eventualities, the pleadings (plaint or written statement) is to be signed and verified by the officials of the company. These authorized officials may be mentioned in the Memorandum & Articles of Association of the Company or if they are not mentioned thereunder then any person may be authorized by the Board of said company through a specific & well defined powers. The statutory backing for the aforesaid mechanism is rooted in Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC. The same being relevant is reproduced below:-

XXIX-Suits by or Against Corporations.......................................

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 able to depose to the facts of the case.

The plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law would show that in suits by or against the corporation any pleading may be signed or verified on behalf of the company by the secretary or director or Principal Officer of the corporation. Similarly,

under Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the ibid Order in such kind of suits service on these specified persons shall be made and the summons are to be issued at the address of their registered office and further when the court is required any factual explanation then it may require the attendance of any of the aforesaid officials of the company. As against this, in other kinds of suits in which the corporation is not a party then the signing and verification of the pleadings are to be governed by Rule 14 and 15 of Order VI CPC.

The same being relevant is also reproduced below:- Rule 14 of Order VI.

14.Pleading to be signed.—Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any): Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.

Rule 15 of Order VI.

15.Verification of pleadings. (1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be varied at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.

(2)The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon

information received and believed to be true.

(3)The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed.

The comparative perusal of the aforesaid provision of law i.e. Rule 1 of Order XXIX and Rule 14 and 15 of Order VI CPC would show that the former provision of law is only for the signing and verification of the pleadings by the officials mentioned thereunder, however, the said provision of law is completely silent to speak about the person(s) who could appear, presents a suit or to file written statement on behalf of the company. It may be clarified that “signing and verification of the pleadings” and “appearance, presentation of suits and filing of written statements” are two distinct phenomena and the same could not be

equated/synonymous to each other and as Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC only provides for “signing and verification of the pleadings” whereas the “appearance, presentation of suit and filing of written statement” in suits in which the Corporation is a party is to be governed by those provisions of CPC which regulates general kinds of suits which are

amongst other includes Rules 1, 2 and 4 of Order III CPC, Rule 1 of Order IV and Rule 1 of Order VIII CPC. The same being relevant are reproduced below:-

Rule 1 of Order III. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader.– Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader [appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be,] on his behalf:

Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person.

Rule 2 of Order III. Recognized agents.– The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are—

(a)persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;

(b)persons carrying on trade or business for and in names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts.

Rule 4 of Order III. Appointment of pleader. (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been

appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment.

(2)Every such appointment shall be filed in Court and shall, for the purposes of sub- rule(1), be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing singed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client.

(3)For the purposes of sub-rule (2) an application for review of judgment, an application under section 144 or section 152 of this Code, any appeal from any decree or order in the suit and any application or act for the purpose of obtaining copies of documents or return of documents produced or filed in the suit or of obtaining refund of monies paid into the Court in connection with the suit shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit.

(4)The High Court may, by general order, direct that, where the person by whom a pleader is appointed is unable to write his name, his mark upon the document appointing the pleader shall be attested by such person and in such manner as may be specified by the order.

(5)No pleader who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in Court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and stating —

(a)the names of the parties to the suit,

(b)the name of the party for whom he appears, and

(c)the name of the person by whom he is authorized to appear:

Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court on behalf of such party.

Rule 1 of Order IV. Suit to be commenced by plaint. (1) Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. (2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, so far as they are applicable.

Rule 1 of Order VIII. Written statement. The defendant may, and, if so required by the Court, shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence [--] [Provided that the period allowed for filing the written statement shall not ordinarily exceed [thirty] days.]

The combined reading of the aforesaid provisions of law would show that an appearance before a Court of law is to be made by the party himself / itself or by his recognized agent or by a pleader and further that such recognized agent and pleader has to be authorized by a power of attorney through a written document. Similarly, every suit shall be instituted by plaintiff by presenting a plaint to the Court and then the defendant has to file his written statement by presenting the same before the said Court and as such by applying the aforesaid

mandate of law the petitioners could have only be allowed to appear by itself or by its duly recognized agent or by a duly appointed pleader, however, as stated hereinabove that in this case, at the stage of original proceedings before the trial court and even before the Appeal Court it has been represented by one Shahid Ali, Advocate whose name is no-where mentioned in any of the written power of attorney or if at all the said Waqas Ullah Shinwari was a duly appointed attorney but again neither the written statement filed on 21.01.2011 or 03.03.2015 nor the memo of appeal filed on 07.01.2016 has been signed / verified by him and thus it can safely be concluded that they have incompetently been filed.

10.Recently a jurisprudence has been developed to the effect that the requirement of Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC which mandates that where 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 to depose to the facts of the case and thus the same are mandatory in nature and the same could not be comprised. In a case1 the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) .vs. Messrs Noor CNG Filling Station (2022 SCMR 1501)

Apex Court has held that the rigors of Order XXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. as a result of non-compliance will obviously come into the play which is not simply a procedural requirement but in essence a matter of dominant implication for juristic persons to set the law into motion including the requirement of appointing or engaging a recognized agent and pleader through a written document signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized thereunder or under a power of attorney to make such appointment which cannot be ignored lightly. Similarly, this Court in an identical circumstances in case titled “Hidayat Ullah .vs. General Manager SNGPL, Peshawar and others” bearing Review Petition No. 229-P/2018 in CR No. 837-P/2014 decided on 08.06.2020 has held that admittedly the word “may” is used in Order XXIX CPC which only enables and permits officer of the company to sign and verify pleadings in a suit filed either on behalf or against, and the same cannot be enlarged or construed to have included the power to institute the suit, unless the same was established by producing necessary resolution (permitting such employee to file the suit) adopted by Board of

Directors of the company in his favour. If for a moment it is presumed that indeed provision of ibid Order are permissive in nature then it is to be construed only to sign and verify the pleadings, as a bare perusal of the provision of law makes it abundantly clear that it does not either deal with the form of the suit nor it confers any authority upon the person, stated therein, to institute the suit on behalf of the corporation. Likewise, the Apex Court in another case2 has held that where the company being a juristic person has not been impleaded as a party and the suit has been filed against the employees of the company then in such eventuality neither the Resolution of the Board would be required nor any such decree is to be executable against the company itself.

11.As far as the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case titled “Rana Basit Rice Mills Private Limited .VS. Shaheen Insurance Company and another” reported as 2021 SCMR1413 which was pressed hard by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned to the effect that the lack of Board Resolution would not invalidate the filing of SDO PESCO Daudzai Sub-division Ring Road, Peshawar and others .vs. Wadan Sher (2023 SCMR 236)

written statement and memo of appeal by the petitioners’ company in view of the ibid judgment, however, the facts of the present case and that of the ibid judgment of Apex Court are distinguishable as in the said judgment the Apex Court has ruled that lack of Board Resolution would not invalidate the proceedings because of the reasons that in the Article of Association of Rana Basit Rice Mills company, there was reference in which powers were conferred upon the person mentioned therein to institute a suit on behalf of the company, however, in the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners could not made any reference to Article of Association of the petitioners’ company where such power has been conferred upon a person / official and then that official has signed/verified the pleading or he has filed written statement or memo of appeal, therefore, the facts of the said case are totally distinguishable from the present case and as such the said judgment is of no benefit for the petitioners.

12.In view of the above discussion and exposition of law on the subject, the learned appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal of petitioners’ company which judgment and decree of the learned appellate

Court dated 18.10.2022 is neither perverse nor arbitrary nor the same is the result of any material irregularity or any illegality or misapplication of law, hence, the same is maintained and upheld, and consequently, this petition being bereft of any merit, is dismissed.

Announced 30.03.2026 Sd/-

JUDGE

(S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan Noor Shah