ORDER S.N. Satyanarayana, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 6362/2009 pending on the file of 18th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, challenging order dated 09 12.2009 dismissing its application filed under Sections 20 and 21 r/w Order VII Rule 11(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The parties to this revision are referred to by their ranking in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 2. The facts leading to this revision are as under: Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, 1st plaintiff is carrying on business in manufacture and sale of Deodorant Body Sprays, Shaving Creams, After Shave Lotions, After Shave Moisturising Gels under the brand name and trade mark of "INSTINCT", which is registered in its name initially in the year 1992 under trade mark Nos. 583418 and 809510 under the then Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, subsequently, registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 under Class 3 being Cosmetics, Perfumery, Toiletries including Hair Lotions, Shampoos, Skin Care Lotion, Shaving Cream, After Shave Lotion. The said trademarks are renewed from time to time are in force up to 21.10.2012 and 10.7.2018 respectively. 3. The 2nd plaintiff is a company manufacturing, marketing and selling same products since 1992 under licence from 1st plaintiff granted in its favour to use, manufacture and get manufactured any goods using the said trade mark "INSTINCT" for a period of 7 years in terms of agreement entered into between them on 01.03.2006. Plaintiff No. 3 has acquired the trademark registered as "INSTINCT" from 1st plaintiff under deed of assignment dated 10.05.2007. Since then 3rd plaintiff has been continuing the business of manufacture of same range of products manufactured by 1st plaintiff by virtue of assignment in its favour. After assignment of proprietorship of trademark rights in its favour, the 3rd plaintiff recognised the earlier licence issued by 1st plaintiff in favour of 2nd plaintiff and confirmed the same by an agreement dated 01.06.2007. 4. According to plaintiffs, defendants are engaged in manufacture and sale of fast moving consumers goods. The 1st defendant manufactures and exports, 2nd defendant imports and distributes cosmetics and allied products including Deodorants, Shaving Creams, etc. 4. According to plaintiffs, defendants are engaged in manufacture and sale of fast moving consumers goods. The 1st defendant manufactures and exports, 2nd defendant imports and distributes cosmetics and allied products including Deodorants, Shaving Creams, etc. It is the case of plaintiffs that the defendants having known the popularity of plaintiffs trademark "INSTINCT" and with a malafide intention of taking undue advantage of plaintiffs' trade mark "INSTINCT have now released in to market a Deodorant and Shower Gel under the name and style of "Axe INXTINCT". According to the plaintiff's the word "INXTINCT" used by defendants on its deodorant is prima facie, phonetically and deceptively similar to the registered trademark "INSTINCT" of plaintiffs. The defendants with a view to en-cash the popularity of plaintiffs trademark "INSTINCT are widely selling, marketing and distributing Body Deodorants under the name and mark 'Axe INXTINCT' through their distributors, stockists, dealers, agents and resellers all across the country. 5. Hence plaintiffs together filed a suit in O.S. No. 6362/2009 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No. 10) against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 5. Hence plaintiffs together filed a suit in O.S. No. 6362/2009 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No. 10) against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their distributors, stockists, business partners, employees, resellers, agents, representatives claiming through or under them from using in any manner the trade mark "INSTINCT” or name or mark “INSTINCT” which is phonetically and deceptively similar to plaintiffs' trademark “INSTINCT”, in relation to any goods, products or services, from selling, marketing, importing, exporting or distributing any goods, products or services that bear the name or mark 'INSTINCT' or 'INXTINCT', from issuing or causing to be issued any advertisements, promotions or campaigns in any media in respect of promotion, selling, marketing or distributing any goods, products or services that bear the name or mark 'INSTINCT' or 'INXTINCT', to hand over to the plaintiff No. 2 all the stock of goods and products, stationary, promotional, publicity or advertisement materials that bear the name or mark 'INSTINCT' or 'TNXTINCT', to render a true and faithful account of all the revenues earned by the defendants through sale of goods and products with the trademark 'INXTINCT' to pay to the plaintiff No. 2 such amount that is equivalent to the revenue earned by the defendants by the sale, marketing, distribution, import and export of such goods, products or services in India for permanent mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from passing off any goods or products as though such goods or products are of the plaintiffs by using the trade mark 'INXTINCT' or anything that is deceptively similar for the products or goods and etc. 6. In the said proceedings, 1st defendant who is revision petitioner herein, entered appearance, filed an application under Sections 20, 21 r/w Order VII Rule 11(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code praying for rejection of the plaint as against 1st defendant on the ground that the City Civil Court, Bangalore, does not have territorial or in personam jurisdiction over defendant No. 1, as there is no cause of action against defendant No. 1 and hence the plaint merits rejection. It is the case of defendants that 1st defendant is a company incorporated in Australia, it does not have any presence including office in India, it has no business or properties in India, it is a manufacturer of various products, including the world famous Axe range of products, which will be sold to various companies, the 2nd defendant is one such company purchases the products manufactured by 1st defendant, which is sold in Australia and thereafter, imported in to India by 2nd defendant, as such, the entire business of defendant No. 1 is in Australia and no part of the business occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of the Indian Courts, much less the Courts at Bangalore. 7. It is the case of defendant No. 1 that under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the City Civil Court, Bangalore will have jurisdiction only in cases where the defendants are residing, carrying on business within the local limits of its jurisdiction since the 1st defendant does not reside or actually carry on business or work for gain within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Bangalore, no part of the cause of action arise within the territorial jurisdiction of Courts at Bangalore. Even if plaintiffs have any right upon registration of alleged trade mark, such right cannot span beyond the boundaries of the country and is limited in its application to the geographical limits of Republic of India and no right of infringement or passing off can be claimed against defendant No. 1, who is not situated in India and who has not done any business in India. The address of 1st defendant as shown in the plaint itself is in Australia, which confirm that defendant No. 1 has no place of business in India, therefore, there is no cause of action against 1st defendant which entitles the plaintiffs to file a suit against 1st defendant. The Courts at Bangalore also cannot entertain such a suit and the act of plaintiff in filing suit against 1st defendant is a deliberate act which merits rejection. The 1st defendant served copy of the application on the plaintiff on 08.12.2009. The plaintiffs did not seek time to file objection to the said application. Instead orally submitted their objection to the said application before the Court below. The 1st defendant served copy of the application on the plaintiff on 08.12.2009. The plaintiffs did not seek time to file objection to the said application. Instead orally submitted their objection to the said application before the Court below. After hearing the counsel for both parties the Court below dismissed the said application by its order dated 09.12.2009. The 1st defendant being aggrieved by the said order has challenged the same in this revision on the following grounds; 8. That the Court below has failed to appreciate the issues raised in the application, passed a sketchy order without examining the pleadings in the plaint. The issues raised in the application were not controverted by the plaintiffs by filing statement of objection. The Court below has not examined the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 and Order VII Rule 11(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code to conclude whether prima facie the Court below has jurisdiction to entertain the suit against 1st defendant. The Court below has failed to appreciate that nowhere in the plaint it is stated that 1st defendant has a place of business in India to justify that the Courts at Bangalore have territorial jurisdiction over 1st defendant. The Court below has also failed to appreciate that no cause of action would arise within the jurisdiction of Courts at Bangalore insofar as 1st defendant is concerned since the 1st defendant neither reside nor actually carry on business or work for gain within the jurisdiction of the courts at Bangalore. No sale activity is carried out by the 1st defendant within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of Courts at Bangalore. Any order that this Court may pass cannot have extra territorial application in order to bind a person, who is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Even if plaintiffs have any right upon a registration of an alleged trade mark, such right cannot span boundaries and is limited in its application to the Republic of India and no right of infringement or passing off can be claimed against the 1st defendant, who is not situate in India and who does not do any business in India. The sale of the product of 1st defendant is conducted within the city of Bangalore by 2nd defendant and not by 1st defendant, admittedly, whose address is shown as that in Australia. The sale of the product of 1st defendant is conducted within the city of Bangalore by 2nd defendant and not by 1st defendant, admittedly, whose address is shown as that in Australia. Since 1st defendant does not directly or indirectly sell any products in India, much less Bangalore, the assumption of jurisdiction over the 1st defendant by the City Civil Court at Bangalore is completely erroneous. The Court below has also failed to look in to the several judgments cited under the Copyright Act, 1957 which are fully applicable to the case on hand, since the judgments were passed in relation to a provision of law contained in the Copyright Act, 1957 which is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the finding given by the court below that the provisions of the Copyright Act do not stand on provisions of Trade Marks Act is patently incorrect finding, the said finding is arrived at in a hurried manner without examining the merits of the facts and the position in law. The court below has failed to appreciate that the jurisdiction that is vested under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 has carved out an exception for registered trade marks and permits a registered proprietor to sue in the place where such person actually and voluntarily resides or carry on business or personally works for gain, there is no material in the plaint to show that the defendants have sold any of the goods within the jurisdiction of Courts at Bangalore. It is well settled that in terms of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code even in the matter of a principal office and a branch it is the place where the principal office is situate which would be regarded as a place of business for the purposes of jurisdiction, considering this position in law the application of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act could never have arisen and the plaintiffs could never have sued the defendants within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Bangalore and the Court below has failed to appreciate that the vakalatnama having been rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC could not have been entertained. 9. In this revision the respondents who are plaintiffs in court below entered appearance through counsel and contested the revision on merits. 9. In this revision the respondents who are plaintiffs in court below entered appearance through counsel and contested the revision on merits. Though the respondents did not file counter denying the averments made in the revision petition, proceeded to justify that the order of dismissal of 1st defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC is just and proper and does not require to be revised in this revision petition. 10. The case of the respondents is that the revision itself is not maintainable for the reason that the alleged power of attorney holder of 1st defendant is not competent to file the revision. The power of attorney said to be executed by 1st defendant in his favour is not properly stamped and does not confer any right on him to represent himself as the agent of 1st defendant/petitioner herein. Further, the power of attorney holder of petitioner is none other than an employee of the 2nd defendant, therefore, there is consorted effort on the part of defendants 1 and 2 before the trial Court to see that the attempt of plaintiff to pursue the suit filed against them is thwarted at any cost. 11. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the Counsel appearing for the respondents, the following points arise for consideration in this revision: 1) Whether the finding of the trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the 1st defendant under Sections 20, 21 r/w Order VII Rule 11(1)(a) of the C.P.C., calls for interference? 2) Whether the revision filed by the 1st defendant through its power of attorney holder is maintainable? 3) What order? This Court answers point No. 1 in the negative, point No. 2 in the affirmative and the petition is dismissed as per the final order. 12. The fact that the 1st plaintiff is registered owner of trademark 'INSTINCT’ under the trademark Nos. 583418 and 809510, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the 1st plaintiff has assigned the right, title and interest in trade mark registered as 'INSTINCT' in favour of 3rd plaintiff under a deed of assignment dated 10.05.2007 and the said 3rd plaintiff has thereafter renewed the licence issued by the 1st plaintiff in favour of 2nd plaintiff for usage of the said trade mark by agreement dated 01.03.2006 under renewal agreement dated 01.06.2007. As could be seen by the address of the plaintiffs the 2nd plaintiff is carrying on its business at Bangalore within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of City Civil, Bangalore and the fact that plaintiffs 1 to 3 are doing the business of manufacturing and sales activity of the aforesaid range of products under the name 'INSTINCT' in whole of India is not disputed by the defendants. 13. Admittedly, the 1st defendant is manufacturer of similar products namely Deodorant Body Sprays, Shaving Creams, After Shave Lotions and After Shave Moisturising Gels having its office in Australia. The 2nd defendant is carrying on business in sale of Deodorant Body Sprays, Shaving Creams, After Shave Lotiono and After Shave Moisturising Gels manufactured by 1st defendant under the name and style of ‘Axe INXTINCT.’ 4. In the court below the summons was issued only in respect of 2nd defendant and though summons was not duly served on 1st defendant, 1st defendant tried to enter appearance through Counsel by filing memo of appearance, which was rejected by the court below. However, while doing so, the trial Court committed an error in not ordering for reissue of summons. Admittedly, as on that day summons was not duly served on 1st defendant. When the Court below was not willing to accept the memo of appearance filed by a Counsel said to have been authorised by the 1st defendant to represent it in the said suit, the right procedure to be adopted by the court below is to issue summons to the address stated in the cause title of the plaint, instead the court below has wrongly proceeded to deal with the matter as if the 1st defendant is duly served, but not properly represented and has gone to the extent of giving a finding that from the date of knowledge of the suit the 1st defendant should have filed written statement within 30 days and if it is not filed, on an application it is entitled to seek extension up to 90 days lime. It is seen that in the absence of service of summons to 1st defendant, when the court below is not willing to accept the memo of appearance filed by a Counsel on behalf of 1st defendant, it had no business to come to a conclusion that 1st defendant is duly served and it has further misled itself to treat the 1st defendant as duly served and not properly represented. Though the court below rejects the memo of appearance filed on behalf of 1st defendant, in order sheet the name of the Counsel who filed memo of appearance to 1st defendant is shown as the Counsel representing the 1st defendant showing within the bracket that he has undertaken to file vakalath for 1st defendant, which is factually incorrect recording of the order sheet by the court below. Further, it is seen that through an Advocate an application is filed on behalf of 1st defendant under Sections 20, 21 read with Order 7 Rule 11(1)(A) of CPC, the same is received by the court below and has proceeded to hear the said Counsel for 1st defendant on the said application and passed an order dismissing the said application by its order dated 9.12.2009. While doing so, certain observations were also made regarding non-filing of written statement by the 1st defendant. 15. The order dated 9.12.2009 which is under challenge in this revision has two portions in it. First portion is the order pertaining to non filing of written statement by 1st defendant within the time and also not filing necessary application seeking extension of time for filing written statement and the second portion of the order is rejecting the application filed by 1st defendant under Sections 20, 21 read with Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. Coming to the later part of order dealing with rejection of application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is seen that the contention of the petitioner herein is that in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 15 onwards deals with the place of suing, the relevant provision which deals with the suit on hand is Section 20, which reads as under: 20. [Section 17] Other suits to be instituted where the defendants reside or cause of action arises. [Section 17] Other suits to be instituted where the defendants reside or cause of action arises. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation - A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. 16. As could be seen from the said provision of law, the suit filed against 1st defendant is contrary to Section 20 of CPC and the same is not maintainable and the plaint filed as against 1st defendant is required to be rejected. It is also the case of 1st defendant that plaintiff has not stated at any point in the plaint that 1st defendant has a place of business in India and has referred to any address of 1st defendant in India. It is the contention of 1st defendant that plaintiff ought to have made such statements to bring this suit within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Bangalore, without such a statement, there can be no cause of action as against 1st defendant and the plaint is required to be rejected on that count. Since 1st defendant has neither resided nor carrying on any sales activity within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Bangalore, the suit is not maintainable under Section 20 of CPC. Further, even if the plaintiffs have any right upon registration of the trademark of “INSTINCT”, the same does not span beyond the geographical boundaries of the country of India. Since 1st defendant has neither resided nor carrying on any sales activity within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Bangalore, the suit is not maintainable under Section 20 of CPC. Further, even if the plaintiffs have any right upon registration of the trademark of “INSTINCT”, the same does not span beyond the geographical boundaries of the country of India. Admittedly, 1st defendant is conducting its business in Australia, hence, does not come within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The relief sought by the plaintiff as against 1st defendant is extra-territorial and goes far beyond the jurisdiction of court below. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 17. If Section 20. CPC is looked in isolation with other provisions of law, the contention raised by 1st defendant appears to be just and proper and prima facie, it appears that plaintiff does not have right to file suit as against 1st defendant herein. However, the dispute between parties is in respect of breach of trademark right of plaintiffs. The provision governing institution of suit under the said Act will also have to be looked in to. 18. It is essential to mention at this juncture that the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is a special enactment. In the said Act, there is a separate provision which deals with the right of the parties to sue these who art infringing their trademark rights. The Legislators, in their wisdom while enacting the said Act have kept in mind the interest of small and medium entrepreneurs and businessmen who need to compete with large, established companies of repute and also the multinationals in protecting their trademark right, in the process it may not be possible for them to challenge the act of infringement by such big companies who have their place of business in different countries having their business activity extending to several countries all over the world. In the event of any breach in the trademark right of such entrepreneur it is difficult for them to go and challenge the bio companies and multinationals at their doorstep. To protect their interest, certain provisions are incorporated under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, deals with the right of parties to initiate suits where there is case of infringement to their trademark right. To protect their interest, certain provisions are incorporated under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, deals with the right of parties to initiate suits where there is case of infringement to their trademark right. Section 134 of Trade Marks Act deals with the mode, method and the forum before which such suit could be filed. The said Section reads as under: 134. Suit for infringement, etc., to be instituted before District Court (1) No suit- (a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; or (b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark; or (C) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. (2) For the purpose of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1), A "District Court having jurisdiction" shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, include a District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Explanation : for the purposes of Sub-section (2), "person" includes the registered proprietor and the registered user. 19. Section 134 of Trade Marks Act empower the plaintiffs to file a suit for infringement etc., before the District Court. Clause 2 of the said Section includes a non-abstante provision, which specifically excludes application of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. So far as the place of suing is concerned Section 20 is relevant provision in CPC, which restricts the right of parties in selecting the place of suing, confining it to the place where the defendant is carrying on its business. So far as the place of suing is concerned Section 20 is relevant provision in CPC, which restricts the right of parties in selecting the place of suing, confining it to the place where the defendant is carrying on its business. However, under Section 134(2) the right of the parties is enlarged in such a way that instead of instituting the suit in a place where the defendant is residing, it can be instituted in a place where the person instituting the suit resides or sells its products or where there are more than one plaintiff in a place where any of them actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or personally works for gain. The said provision clearly empowers the person filing the suit to initiate the suit for infringement of his trademark right either in a place where he is carrying on business or in one of the place where more than one person is suing in the said suit. In the instant case, there are three plaintiffs. The 1st and 3rd plaintiff are having their place of business at Mumbai, the 2nd plaintiff is doing business in Mumbai as well as Bangalore. The place of business of 1st defendant is in Australia and that of business of the 2nd defendant is in Mumbai and as well as in Bangalore. Under Section 134(2) of Trade Marks Act the plaintiffs have ample choice to choose the place to sue the defendants either in Mumbai or at Bangalore. Therefore, they are justified in filing the present suit in City Civil Court Bangalore. The suit filed by the plaintiffs herein against the defendants is proper and maintainable. 20. The contention of the petitioner/1st defendant to state that the suit is not properly filed is incorrect. Further, the petitioner herein has relied upon the following rulings in support of its case; The judgments cited by the petitioner are as under: (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 630 in the matter of Auto Engineering Works v. Bansal Trading Co. and Ors., wherein it is held that lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court must return the plaint for presentation to proper Court. (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 41 in the matter of Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, wherein it is held that Court lacking territorial jurisdiction is chorum non judis. and Ors., wherein it is held that lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court must return the plaint for presentation to proper Court. (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 41 in the matter of Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, wherein it is held that Court lacking territorial jurisdiction is chorum non judis. Its order would be a nullity and the cause of action arises only when a registered trademark is used. (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 704 in the matter of Shree Subhalaxmi Fabrics (P) Ltd. v. Chand Mal Baradia and others, wherein it is held that territorial jurisdiction need to be determined conclusively before granting interim relief. Injunction cannot be granted on the basis of arguable case. (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 225 in the matter of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, wherein it is held that registered office of a company is where it resides. AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2330 in the matter of World Tanker Carrier Corporation v. SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., wherein it is held that defendant outside India - collusion due to negligence of crew of vessels outside India - Recruitment of crew at Bombay will not confer jurisdiction on Bombay Court. AIR 1960 Supreme Court 142 in the matter of Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., wherein it is held that trademark acquires reputation in connection with the goods in respect of which it is used. Manufacturer is immaterial. AIR 2001 Sc 358 in the matter of Malaysian Airlines Systems Bhd. v. Stic Travels (P) Ltd., wherein it Is held that power of attorney need not be stamped before 3 months. FAO (OS) 359/2007 and CM 12471/2007 in the matter of the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia and Anr., by Delhi High court. Careful reading of the aforesaid judgments clearly disclose that the ratio enunciated in the said decisions have no bearing on the points for consideration in this revision except for the last Judgment. FAO (OS) 359/2007 and CM 12471/2007 in the matter of the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia and Anr., by Delhi High court. Careful reading of the aforesaid judgments clearly disclose that the ratio enunciated in the said decisions have no bearing on the points for consideration in this revision except for the last Judgment. That is in the matter of Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia and Anr., of Delhi High Court, which deals with a similar situation where the Delhi High Court has taken a view that in the matter where the infringement of trademark right is alleged that in addition to the provision under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, the plaintiff will also have a right to choose to file a suit taking recourse to the provision of Section 20 of CPC. Be that as it may, the ratio laid down in the said decision does not run contrary to the finding of this Court inasmuch as opining that under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the plaintiffs have right to file the suit in its place of business. Accordingly, in the instant case plaintiffs can invoke the territorial jurisdiction of Bangalore Courts and file the suit in the City Civil Court, Bangalore. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the 1st defendant. 21. So far as maintainability of revision filed by the 1st defendant is concerned, the respondent herein has contended that this revision petition is not maintainable as the same is filed through a power of attorney holder and the said power of attorney which is executed in his behalf in Australia is not properly stamped as required under the Stamp Act in India, therefore, it does not empower the agent under the said power of attorney to file this revision petition. So far as the authority given to an agent to represent the principal, the authority may be either express or implied. If it is express, as it is in the present case, the intention of the principal in appointing the agent to do a particular act on its behalf should be expressly provided in the instrument under which the power is granted. If it is express, as it is in the present case, the intention of the principal in appointing the agent to do a particular act on its behalf should be expressly provided in the instrument under which the power is granted. A copy of the power of attorney filed along with vakalath filed in this revision discloses that the said power of attorney is executed on 10.12.2009 at Australia granting power to represent the petitioner in OS. No. 6362/2009. The vakalath in this revision petition is filed on 15.12.2009 in this Court. It is contended by the Counsel for the respondent that, the said power of attorney cannot be accepted for the reason that the same is not properly stamped. Under Section 18 of the Karnataka Stamp Act any document which is liable for duty if it is executed outside the country will have to be properly stamped within 3 months from the date of the same received in the State of Karnataka. In the instant case, the power of attorney is executed on 10.12.2009 and assuming that it is received in Bangalore on the next day or day after that, from that day 3 months time is available for the agent to get the said document duly stamped. Even assuming that it is not stamped within that time, the said document will not become invalid, the same will have to be regularised by paying duty and penalty as provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the revision petition filed by the 1st defendant through its agent is not maintainable cannot be accepted. Accordingly, it is held that the power of attorney/agent of the 1st defendant/petitioner herein is entitled to file and maintain the above revision petition and the same is in order. The finding of this Court regarding the order dated 9.12.2009, rejection of the application is concerned, the same is upheld for the aforesaid reason. 22. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 9.12.2009 in OS. No. 6362/2009 rejecting the application of 1st defendant under Sections 20, 21 read with Order 7 Rule 11, CPC is confirmed. The finding of this Court regarding the order dated 9.12.2009, rejection of the application is concerned, the same is upheld for the aforesaid reason. 22. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 9.12.2009 in OS. No. 6362/2009 rejecting the application of 1st defendant under Sections 20, 21 read with Order 7 Rule 11, CPC is confirmed. However, in view of the fact that the court below has not taken proper steps for reissue of summons to the 1st defendant while rejecting the memo of appearance has committed procedure error and the trial Court cannot refuse giving sufficient opportunity to the 1st defendant to effectively contest the suit on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice it is proper to give sufficient time to 1st defendant to contest the original suit on merits. The 1st defendant/petitioner herein is granted 30 days time from this day to file its detailed written statement in OS. No. 6362/2009 pending on the file of 18th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, and to contest the suit on merits. With these observations and directions the above revision petition is dismissed without any order as to cost.