Where a suit is dismissed for default, it is not necessary for the advocate who is already on record to file a fresh vakalath inasmuch as the vakalath already filed by him does not get terminated.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in LA. No. 1424 of 19/5, dated 6th December, 1977.

( 2 ) ON 4th October, 1975, when the suit s. C. No 1042 of 1974 was called neither the counsel Sri Mohd. Waheeduddin nor the plaintiff was present. The trial Court dismissed the suit for d fault. Thereafter an application I. A. No. 1424 of 1975 was filed under Order 9, rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the order of the Court dismissing the suit for default. In the said petition it was stated that the plaintiff was bed-ridden and was not in a position to attend the Court and his advocate was engaged in a civil suit in some other Court and therefore he could not attend the Court when the suit was called.

( 3 ) THE Court below did not consider the application on merits, but however dismissed it on the ground that md. Waheeduddin. has no locus standi to represent the plaintiff in any subsequent proceeding, including an application to set aside the order of dismissal for default, inasmuch as the vakalat given by the plaintiff ceases to be in effect, after dismissal of the suit for default. In support of this view the court below relied upon two decisions in pavoorrayil Mamu (alias) Muhammad v. Kunhimon (alias) Muhammad and Hyderabad import Export Co. Secunderabad v. The united Trading Co. Bhagathkot. Jodhpur. It is this order that is now challenged in this revision.

( 4 ) SINCE nobody represented the respondent I requested Mr. M. V. Ranganadham to assist the Court and he has placed the necessary decisions relevant on the point and I am thankful to Mr Raaganadham for the said assistance.

( 5 ) A perusal of the decision cited before me shows that there is a distinction between a case where a Counsel reports no instructions and a case where it is dismissed for default. The two decisions relied upon by the Court below are distinguishable.

( 6 ) THE second case relied on by the Court below, one Mr. Venkateswarlu was appearing for the plaintiff. That suit was dismissed for default. One Mr. Janardhana Rao, junior to Mr. Venkateswarlu presented an application for restoration of the suit, along with his own affidavit for setting aside the default order. In that connection it was held therein that Mr. Janardhana Rao has not filed a vakalat afresh and hence he is not competent to file an application for restoration of the suit on behalf of v. Venkateswarlu. It must be noted here that Janardhana Rao filed an application independently in his own name and therefore the Court held that under Order 3, rule 4. he wa; not competent to file an application for restoration unless he files a fresh vakalat. The Division Bench in this regard referred to Pavoorrayil Mamu alias muhammad v. Kunhimon (alias) Muhammod. That was a case where an advocate reported no instructions. Justice Mack held that Order 3, rule 4, is primarily intended to protect clients from anybody other than advocates authorised by them appearing, acting and making representation on their behalf and when once the advocate reports no instructions the Vakalat filed by him is terminated and technically a fresh vakalat should be filed when a restoration application is filed. The case on hand is one where it was dismissed for default and stands on a different footing.

( 7 ) IN Manickam Pilial v. Mahudum, Coutts-Trotter, C. J. , speaking for the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, observed thus:-"the exact question put to is whether when a pleader reports no instructions whether after he has asked for an adjournment, and been refused or not, the Court is correct in holding that the party for whom the pleader was appearing has not appeared. We think that the only answer can be that, at any rate, in the circumstances of this case, the pleader cannot be deemed to have appeared. I should add one other word. The section says that the withdrawal of the pleader must be with the leave of the Court. It does not sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document