(Per D.S.R. Varma, J.)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. This application C.C.C.A.M.P. NO.136 of 2006 is filed under Order 41 Rule 19 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 27-7-2005, in C.C.C.A.M.P. No.525 of 2005, passed by this Court restoring the appeal C.C.C.A. No.36 of 1995.

3. The petitioners herein are plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the respondents are defendant Nos.1 to 4-A.P. State Electricity Board in the suit O.S. NO.62 of 1981 on the file of I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties herein are referred to as per their array in the suit.

5. The Court below, decreed the suit in part, by judgment and decree, dated 16-7-1993, declaring that the total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) deposited by the plaintiffs-Factory was sufficient towards pilferage of energy charges.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred the abovementioned appeal C.C.CA No.36 of 1995 before this Court. On 19-8-2002, when the said appeal came up for hearing, since there was not representation, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-appearance.

7. However, on application C.C.C.A.M.P. No.525 of 2005 made by the defendants Board, this Court, allowed the said application, by order, dated 25-7-2005, setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 19-8-2002, passed by this Court, in C.C.CA No.36 of 1995, and the said appeal had been restored on to file.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the present -application C.C.C.A.M.P. No.136 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiffs.

9. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiffs were served with an order of final assessment regarding the bills for HT energy supply to the Factory for a sum of Rs.15,94,142-80 paise. The said sum was arrived at by the Board on the ground that there was some pilferage on the part of the plaintiffs.

10. It is the contention of Sri Muralinarayan Bung, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, that when once the appeal was dismissed for default, the counsel on record ceases to be the counsel and notices ought to have been served on the party, and further that no proper reasons were assigned in the l affidavit filed in support of the application C.C.C.A.M.P. No.525 of 2005, filed by the Board under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C., seeking restoration of the appeal. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that the order of restoration of the said appeal, passed by this Court, dated 27-7-2005, is liable to be set aside.

11. In this regard, it is to be seen from the order, dated 27-7-2005, in C.C.C.A.M.P. No.525 of 2005, passed by this Court restoring the appeal after setting aside the order of dismissal for default, that the said order was passed after hearing Sri Sreeramulu Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Board, and Sri K.R. Raman, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs (petitioners herein).

12. Though, technically it appears that once the appeal was dismissed for default, the relationship of Advocate and client ceases, but, still the vakalat given by the plaintiffs to Sri K.R. Raman, learned counsel, shows that the learned counsel was authorised to deal with all matters connected to the suit. This includes, in our considered view, to take notice of the petition filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C., upon service by the Board, appear before the Court and represent the clients. Of course, at times, counsel may be able to inform the client and at times, not. The authorization given to the counsel shall be understood strictly not only in terms of the conditions incorporated in the vakalat but also with regard to the over all facts and circumstances.

13. When the said application C.C.C.A.M.P. No.525 of 2005, under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C., tiled by the Board, had come up for hearing, this Court recording the presence of both the learned counsel appearing for either s