Bhat, J.
1. Respondents 1, 3, 8 and 14 in O. P. No. 123/1982 of the District Court, Trichur are the appellants herein.
2. First respondent herein, Kerala Financial Corporation, filed the O.P. before the District Judge Under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') claiming reliefs against the respondents in the petition in regard to the recovery of amounts borrowed by those respondents from the Corporation by sale of properties charged. Respondents 2, 3 and 8 before the lower court filed objections contending that the petition has not been signed and verified by a competent officer of the Corporation and is not maintainable, that the entire loan amount has not been disbursed and the claim was premature, that the loan was borrowed to erect a freezing plant the work in connection with which was entrusted to M/s. Peyoli Refrigeration Corporation at the instance of the Kerala Financial Corporation and they did not complete the work in time in spite of demand and, therefore, the Financial Corporation is not entitled to recover the amount from them. The learned Judge overruled all these contentions and allowed the petition. Hence this appeal.
3. Rule 1 of Order XXIX CPC states that in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of 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 learned Judge felt that since the Kerala Financial Corporation has officers superior to the Deputy Legal Manager who has signed and verified the plaint, he is not the principal officer to file the suit. We are unable to agree with this view. The expression 'principal officer' has not been defined in the C.P.C. If the word is to mean the most important officer, then not more than one officer in the corporation will be able to sign the petition. Section 31 of the Act states, inter alia, that in cases of default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof, any officer of the Financial Corporation, generally or specially authorised by the Board in this behalf may apply to the District Judge for one or more of the reliefs contemplated therein. Reading Rule 1 of Order XXIX and Section 31 of the Act together and harmoniously it must follow that any officer generally or specially authorised by the Board in that behalf can be regarded as principal officer for the purpose of Order XXIX C.P.C. Even otherwise it is necessary to remember that Rule 1 of Order XXIX C.P.C. is not exhaustive of the persons or officers who can sign and verify the plaint. There is no dispute before us that the Deputy Legal Manager who actually signed and verified the petition was duly authorised to do so by the Board as per Ext. A5 resolution. We, therefore, find that the petition filed before the District Judge was by a competent officer.
4. Appellants contend that the entire loan amount sanctioned by the Corporation has not been disbursed and, therefore, the claim is premature. The Corporation sanctioned loan of Rs. 9,95,000/- to the first appellant herein. Rs. 7,23,182.50 was disbursed in three instalments and in that behalf three registered mortgage deeds have been executed in favour of the Corporation charging some immovable properties and moveables such as machinery. There is no dispute before us that regarding the amounts so disbursed, borrower was obliged to repay the same with interest in certain specified instalments. There is no dispute before us that such instalments had been kept in arrears. It is true that a portion of the loan amount sanctioned has not been disbursed to the borrower. We asked learned counsel for the appellants about the terms on which the balance amount is required to be disbursed in accordance with the conditions of contract between the parties. Learned counsel explained that portions of the loan amount are to be disbursed depending on the stage reached in the erection of the plant for the erection of which loan was sanctioned. Learned counsel also stated that the plant has not been erected. Therefore, this is patently a case where required part of the work has not been completed. The fact that the entire amount has not been disbursed would not render the claim premature.
5. The last contention urged by learned counsel for the appellants is that the work of erection of the plant was entrusted to M/s. Peyoti Regfrigeration Corporation at the instance of the Kerala Financial Corporation and the Corporation did not complete the work in spite of demand and the Kerala Financial Corporation failed to persuade the Corporation to complete the work and therefore, Kerala Financial Corporation is not entitled to recover the amount. We fail to understand the logic behind this submission. The averment in the counter filed before the District Judge is only that work was entrusted to the Corporation. One of the partners examined as RW-1 stated that contract was given to the knowledge and with the consent of the Kerala Financial Corporation. If the Kerala Financial Corporation wanted the borrower to entrust the work to a particular party it would have been done so in writing and not orally. Appellants have no case that Kerala Financial Corporation made any such suggestion or demand in writing. Kerala Financial Corporation being a public sector undertaking would certainly be interested in ensuring that loan amount is spent properly and the plant is erected in lime and in a proper manner. For that purpose Kerala Financial Corporation might have suggested that reputed party capable of undertaking the job within the stipulated time should be engaged. Even assuming that Kerala Financial Corporation suggested this particular party for the erection work, we fail to see how the Kerala Financial Corporation would be responsible for the failure of that party. We do not think that this has any bearing on the recovery of the amount advanced by the Kerala Financial Corporation.
6. No other contention has been urged before us. We find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal.