Gujarat High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs T. K. Gopalkrishna Panicker ... on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/511/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 511 of 2025
================================================================
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.
Versus
T. K. GOPALKRISHNA PANICKER CHANDRAMOHAN
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAKASH G PANDYA(3041) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Revision Application has been filed
challenging the judgment and decree, dated 24.03.2025, passed
by Small Cause Court, Vadodara, in SMST-S No.105 of 2021,
below Exhibit-52, whereby the said suit has been dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their original status as that in the suit.
3. The brief facts arising in the present Civil Revision
Application are that, the plaintiff filed SMST-S No.105 of 2021,
on the ground that the plaintiff had issued bills for phone No.-
0265-2785980, for an amount of Rs.2,27,818/- for the period
from February-2019 to May-2019 and as the defendant did not
pay the said amount, the plaintiff was constrained to issue notice
to the defendant, and thereafter, file suit, the defendant appeared
in the said suit and filed written statement, vide Exhibit-7. The
trial Court framed issues vide Exhibit-9 as under:-
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to recover
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/511/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
suit amount from the defendant?
2) Whether the suit notice is legal and valid?
3) What amount is actually due to defendant?
3A) Whetherthe defendant proves that the plaint is verified by a
person on behalf of the plaintiff, who has no authoritty and hence
the suit is required to be dismissed?
4) Whether the defendan prroves that he is not legally liable to
pay the telephone bills as claimed under the present suit as alleged?
5) Whether there is no cause of action has arisen to file the
present suit?
6) Whether the present suit is no maintainable due to non-joinder
and mis-joinder of necessary parties?
7) Whether the present suit is time barred?
8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief or reliefs as
prayed for?
9) What orde and decree?
4. The plaintiff examined himself vide Exhibit-17. The
defendant examined himself vide Exhibit-34 and after taking
into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court dismissed the said suit on the ground that the defendant
had proved that the plaint is verified by the person on behalf of
the plaintiff, who had no authority, and therefore, the suit was
dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court, present Revision Application is filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/511/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has mainly argued that
the trial Court has dismissed the suit only on technical point, and
therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is
required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Moreover, it has also been argued by learned advocate for
the plaintiff that trial Court after coming to the conclusion that
the plaintiff has proved that they are entitled to recover the suit
amount from the defendant and the fact that the suit amount
claimed by the plaintiff is legal and valid and when the trial
Court has come to the conclusion that the defendant has not
proved that he is not legally liable to pay the telephone bill as
claimed in the suit. The trial Court could not have dismissed the
suit only on the point that the plaint is verified by the person, on
behalf of the plaintiff, who has no authority, and therefore, the
order passed by the trial Court is required to be quashed and set
aside and the present Revision Application be allowed.
7. Having heard learned advocate for the plaintiff, the fact
remains that in the written statement the defendant had taken a
defence that the individual who had signed the plaint did not
have any authority to do the same, for and on behalf of the
plaintiff, and even after the said defence was taken by the
defendant, the plaintiff did not provide any proof that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/511/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
individual who signed and confirmed the plaint was in fact
given authority by the plaintiff to do so. The plaintiff had also
not produced any documents to prove that any authority letter or
power of attorney was given to the said person despite the
objection having been raised by the defendant in his written
statement.
8. Moreover, there was nothing on record to prove that the
said individual who has signed the plaint was given any
authority by the plaintiff to sign the same. There was nothing on
record to prove that there was any authority by which the said
individual has authority to sign for and on behalf of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff had not produced any evidence to prove that the
person signed the plaint was an authorized person of the plaintiff
to file the suit. Moreover, there was nothing to prove the fact
that the plaintiff had given any authority to the person signing
the plaint.
9. In view of the said fact, judgment and decree passed by the
Small Cause Court, Vadodara in SMST-S No.105 of 2021
below Exhibit-52 does not require any interference and in view
of the same, the present Civil Revision Application is dismissed.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
