( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30-4-1996 passed by the District Munsif at Kodangal on I. A. No. 62 of 1995 in O. S. No. 67 of 1991. The petitioner is the first defendant. By the impugned judgment and order, the Court below refused to condone the delay of about 233 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30-8-1994 and accordingly dismissed the I. A.

( 2 ) HEARD both the learned Counsel.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that there is a delay of 233 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30-8-1994. But the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not be present on 30-8-1994 due to the fact that he was sick and as such he was prevented from appearing before the Court. Secondly it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the Advocate reported no instructions on 18-2-1994. Moreover, the Advocate had not issued any notice expressing his intention to retire from the case. It was in those circumstances, the petitioner could not appear on 30-8-1994. To show that he was sick the petitioner produced a medical certificate issued by the Ayurvedic doctor. In those circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below should have condoned the delay. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.

( 4 ) FEW facts which are not disputed are that the Advocate appearing for the petitioner reported no instructions on 18-2-1994 and thereafter the present petitioner-defendant was set ex parte and ultimately the suit was disposed of by passing an exparte order on 30-8-1994 by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. From these admitted facts it is evident that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reported no instructions on 18-2-1994 without issuing any registered notice to the petitioner or without intimating him in any other manner. If the Advocate appearing for the party is allowed to retire without issuing any notice or information to his client, definitely it would lead to a greathardship since consequently it would lead to exparte proceedings against the party for whom he was appearing. In fact, in order to meet this kind of situation only, the Bar Council of India had framed rules called Bar Council of India Rules. Rule 12 reads as under :"rule 12: An Advocate shall not ordinarily withdraw from engagements once accepted, without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and sufficient notice is given to the client. Upon his withdrawal from a case, he shall refund such part of the fee, as has not been earned. "from the Rule extracted above, it is clear that the Advocate shall not ordinarily withdraw from any engagement once accepted without sufficient cause and without reasonable and sufficient notice to his client. The mode of issuing notice may be different in different circumstances i. e. , either by issuing a registered notice or by taking the signature of the client on a memo of retirement etc. But, without such a notice to his client, I do not think that any advocate could be permitted to retire from the case. In the instant case, the counsel appearing for the petitioner reported no instructions and retired from the case on 18-2-1994 without notice to the petitioner. Hence it is probable on the part of the petitioner that he was not aware of the dates of hearing as on 30-8-1994 on which date ultimately the suit was decreed. In these circumstances, I hold that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner not attending the Court on 30-8-1994.

( 5 ) SECONDLY, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was sick from 4-3-1994 to 31-3-1995. He has produced the Doctor Certificates to show that he was suffering from paralysis on the left side of his body and as such he was under treatment. Number of medical certificates are given for di