The admissibility of a power of attorney executed outside India and engrossed in Indian Non-Judicial stamp paper does not require certification by the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

C.R.P. (PD) No.472 of 2006:

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif in charge/Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram dated 25.4.2006 made in I.A. No.75 of 2006 in O.S. No.24 of 2005.

C.R.P. (PD) No. 473 of 2006:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif in charge/Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram dated 25.4.2006 made in I.A. No.76 of 2006 in O.S. No.24 of 2005.

2. The petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions is the plaintiff in O.S. No.24 of 2005 and the respondent herein is the first defendant in the said suit. The petitioner has filed the Suit in O.S. No.24 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram for declaration of her title in respect of the suit property, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the said suit from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, and for costs. The respondent herein has filed a detailed written statement to the said Plaint. The matter was posted for trial on 3.11.2005. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 on 27.12.2005 and the matter has been posted on 28.12.2005 for cross-examination of P.W.1. Again for cross-examination of P.W.1, the matter, was adjourned adjourned to 3.1.2006. On 3.1.2006, on behalf of the first defendant in the said Suit, namely, the respondent herein, three Petitions have been filed (a) To accept one S. Bismillah Khan as Power Agent of the respondent (b) To defer the further proceedings in O.S. No.24 of 2005 (c) To re-open I.A. No.308 of 2005 filed for appointment of Commissioner. On 4.1.2006, all the petitions were returned and the Suit was posted to 5.1.2006. On 5.1.2006, the second defendant was given up by the petitioner-herein/plaintiff and the Suit was decreed ex parse against the first defendant alone, who is the respondent herein. On 30.1.2006, I.A. No.75 of 2006 has been filed to accept Bismillah Khan as power agent of the defendant and I.A. No. 76 of 2006 was filed to set aside the ex paste decree. The respondent earlier has come forward with a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD) No.166 of 2006 praying for a direction to dispose of I.A. No. 76 of 2006 within a time frame fixed by this Court. The same has been ordered by this Court on 3.3.2006 directing the Court below to dispose of I.A. No.76 of 2006 within eight weeks. Thereafter, the respondent has filed another Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (NPD) No.263 of 2006 praying for a direction directing the Court below to dispose of I.A. No.75 of 2006 also along with I.A. No.76 of 2006. This Court directed the Court below to dispose of both the I.As. Thereafter, both the Applications have been allowed by the Court below and the present revisions are directed against those orders.

3. Mr. R.S. Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the Court below has erroneously allowed the applications without appreciating the facts and the law involved thereon. He has further contended that the earlier Application in I.A. No.75 of 2006 has been filed on behalf of the respondent to accept the said Bismillah Khan as power agent of the respondent and the same has been returned by the Court below and hence, another Application on the same set of facts to recognise the said S. Bismillah Khan as power agent is hit by res judicata. The learned counsel has further submitted that the power of attorney cannot be accepted since the power has been executed at Malaysia by the respondent. The power should have been certified by the Collector within three months from the date of execution as contemplated under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Since it has not been certified as contemplated under the provisions of the said Act, the power of attorney said to have been executed by respondent at Malaysia cannot be acted upon. In this connection, learned counsel for the