(1.) This is an appeal from an order, made by Mr. Justice Blackwell in chambers, in which ho directed the plaintiffs plaint to be taken off the file. The point raises a rather troublesome question of practice on which Mr. Justice K. Kemp in chambers came to a conclusion different from that at which Mr. Justice Blackwell arrived in the present case and although Mr. Justice Blackwell in a later case followed the decision of Mr. Justice K. Kemp, he still thought his original point of view was right.
(2.) Now, the point is this. The plaintiffs are a company registered in England and also registered under Section 277 of the Indian Companies Act, and they commenced this action to obtain an injunction to restrain the defendants from importing and/or selling certain articles under a trade-mark similar to that of the plaintiffs, and the plaint was signed by Mr. C. M. Eastley, described as a partner in the firm of Messrs, Little & Co., attorneys for and duly constituted attorneys of the plaintiffs. There is a power of attorney, which is on the record, given by the plaintiffs to Mr. Eastley, under which he was empowered to commence an action in the Bombay Presidency concerning the infringement of any designs registered in India and to sign pleadings and to execute and do all such other deeds, instruments, acts and things whatsoever which might be necessary or proper in relation to the matters aforesaid, The power, although by no means a general power, is a power authorising him expressly to sign the plaint in an action such as this.
(3.) Now, the question is whether that plaint was well signed or not, and I think that question turns on the meaning to be attributed to Order XXIX, Rule 1, and Order VI, Rule 14. Order XXIX, Rule 1, provides :- In suits by or against a corporation, Guy 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.