Prasenjit Mandal, J.

1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the Order No.59 dated October 25, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Durgapur in Money Suit No.41 of 1998 thereby rejecting an application dated May 17, 2001 by the defendant / petitioner. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a money suit against the petitioner. The defendant / petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations in the plaint. He filed an application dated May 17, 2001 raising the question of maintainability of the suit when the Director, namely, Mr. Indrajit Sengupta had signed the plaint and verification on behalf of the plaintiff company. Issues have been framed. According to the direction of this Honble Court, the issue of maintainability and that application were taken up hearing together. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge rejected the said application holding that the suit was maintainable in its present form. Being aggrieved by such order, this application has been preferred.

2. Now, the question is whether the impugned orders should be sustained.

3. Upon hearing the petitioner-in-person and the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaint and the verification of the plaint have been signed by Mr. Indrajit Sengupta as Director of the plaintiff company. The petitioner has argued that Mr. Indrajit Sengupta is not at all a Director and he has no capacity the work as such. He has also contended that as per order of the Court, one Mr. A.N. Mishra has been appointed as Special Officer of the company and so, Mr. Indrajit Sengupta has no right to sign in the capacity of a Director and so, the suit is not maintainable.

4. In support of his contention, the petitioner has referred to the decision of Bengal Laxmi Cotton Mills reported in 1969 CWN 137, International Coal Corporation v. Pure Sitalpur Coal Concern Ltd. reported in : AIR 1972 Cal 45 [LQ/CalHC/1971/171] , Murabka Paint & Varnish Works (Private) Ltd. v. Mohanlal Murabka & ors.32 reported in 1965 CWN 32 and Shree Tej Protap Textile Mills v. Granaries Ltd. & ors. reported in 1965 CWN 665.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Chayan Gupta, learned Advocate for the opposite party has referred to a decision of Castron Mining Ltd. & ors. v. Parameshwar Kamar Agarwalla & ors. F.M.A.T. No.2462 of 2005 with C.O. No.2672 of 2005 disposed of on September 26, 2005.

6. Referring to the decisions referred to by the petitioner, he has submitted that the Directors powers cannot be exercised, once the company goes on liquidation or its property and assets come under the custody of the Court under the provisions of the Companies Act and must in any event be held to payment dormant so long as the order of the provisional liquidator is operative. The Director cannot file a suit against a Debtor even if the provisional liquidator willfully refuses to institute a suit for the purpose.

7. The petitioner has also contended that Mr. Indrajit Sengupta was not authorized at all to sign the plaint and the verification on behalf of the company. He has also contended that when the Special Officer appointed by the Court exercises his powers and functions, he is an Officer of the Court and so, he is competent to file the suit and not by Mr. Sengupta. He has also contended that he filed a case against the Company before the Company Law Board and the matter is pending and so, the suit cannot proceed against him. Thus, the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order cannot be supported and it should be set aside.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Chayan Gupta appearing on behalf of the opposite party has submitted that the dispute involved in the present suit could well be adjudicated in a civil suit and the suit has been filed in the Court having the jurisdiction in complying with the provisions of Order 29 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and for that reason, the learned Trial Judge has rightly passed the impugned order.

9. Mr. Chayan Gupta, learned Advocate of the opposite party has also drawn my attention to the resolution appearing as Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the plaintiff to show that Mr. Indrajit Sengupta, Director of the company is authorized to initiate an act on all legal proceedings (civil and criminal) on behalf of the company.

10. He has also referred two other pages of the affidavit-in opposition wherein the petitioner has claimed that Mr. Indrajit Sengupta is not competent to institute the suit on behalf of the company and such contention was rejected by the concerned Court in the other matters.

11. From the Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition, I find that Mr. Indrajit Sengupta is authorized to initiate an act on all the legal proceedings (civil and criminal) on behalf of the company as per resolution taken by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company at its 116th Meeting held on May 7, 1993.

12. In the instant case, no liquidator has been appointed but a Special Officer has been appointed to look into the day-to-day affairs of the company. Such Special Officer has been appointed to do a particular job, i.e., day-to-day affairs of the company and there is no indication that he is at liberty to do all the jobs to be performed by the Board of Directors or a Director on behalf of the company. The Special Officer has been appointed for a limited purpose and such appointment for a specific purpose cannot be treated that Mr. Indrajit Sengupta has no authority to sign or act on behalf of the company in respect of the litigations. In order to entertain a suit on behalf of the company by a Civil Court, the provisions of Order 29 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. are to be considered. For convenience, the said provisions are quoted below:-

Order 29 Rule 1 of the C.P.C.:-

"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."

13. In that view of the matter, I find that the suit has been filed by the company in compliance with the provisions of Order 29 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. An appointment of a Special Officer will not be a bar to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the company by Mr. Indrajit Sengupta. The application dated May 17, 2001 has, therefore, been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Judge and there is no scope of interference with the impugned order at all.

14. Accordingly, this application is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

15. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.