The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court dated 28. 2006 made in I.A.No.4780 of 2006 in O.S.No. 769 of 2003.

2. The defendant in the above referred suit is the petitioner and the plaintiff thereon is the respondent herein. The respondent herein laid the suit against the petitioner herein for recovery of the amount said to be due by the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner had taken out an application in I.A.No.4780 of 2006 to dismiss the suit. The said application was dismissed by the Court below and the present revision is directed against the said order.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for dismissing the suit the petitioner had averred that the suit has been laid through power of attorney agent, who has verified the plaint and signed the vakalat on behalf of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had also filed an application for leave of the Court to sign and verify the pleadings, which has not been ordered by the trial Court. Hence, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit as the power of attorney was not permitted to sign the plaint.

4. In the counter affidavit, the respondent herein has stated that while filing the suit, the xerox copy of the power of attorney was filed along with an application under Order III Rule 2 of C.P.C. After verifying the same with the original, the suit was numbered and posted before the Court. The petitioner, who have already filed their written statement did not raise any objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit. Issues were framed and thereafter trial had commenced. P.W.1 was examined in chief and thereafter on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was cross examined in part. Without completing the cross examination the present application has been filed in order to drag on the proceedings.

5. Mr. C.Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.Venkateswaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent had made their submissions on the pleadings raised by them in the affidavit and counter affidavit respectively.

6. Mr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the application filed on behalf of the respondent for permission permitting the power agent to sign and verify the plaint was not ordered by the Court below, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. For the said proposition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on number of authorities.

7. It is to be seen that the suit had been laid by the respondent M/s.Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd., represented by its Senior Assistant (Accounts) and also the Power of Attorney one S.Muthian. The said power of attorney has signed the vakalat on behalf of the respondent / plaintiff and he has also verified the plaint. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Senior Assistant cannot represent the Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. Nowhere in the written statement such a plea has been taken. Further more, it is not the case of the petitioner either in the written statement or in the affidavit filed in support of the application that power of attorney was not given to the Senior Assistant. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the application for leave which had been filed to represent the respondent by the power agent was not filed by the petitioner / plaintiff. While so now to plead that the Senior Assistant cannot represent the respondent/ plaintiff/company, when once the respondent filed an application for permission under Order III Rule 2 of C.P.C to represent through power agent cannot be entertained. Even if it was not allowed by the Court below, it could only be a curable defect. The mistake in not allowing the application should not be put against the respondent. Further, it has to be seen that the petitioner, who has not raised the above plea in the written statement sought to raise only after P.W.1 was examined in chief