( 1 ) THE respondents 1 to 7 filed. P. No. 6 of 1990, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, markapur, to declare one Sri Thanneeru musalaiah, the respondent No. 24 herein, as insolvent. They have also impleaded three others, by name T. Venkataiah, t. Narayanamma and T. Guramma, inasmuch as the respondent No. 24 transferred certain items of property in their favour. It was pleaded in the. P. that respondent No. 24 had contracted debts with the petitioners in the. P. , but failed to discharge the same. According to them, the transfers were made, only to screen the debts.

( 2 ) THE matter was contested by all the respondents in the. P. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of respondents 2 and 3 in the. P. On their behalf, an Advocate was engaged, and he reported no instructions. The trial court decreed the. P. , through its order dated 25-3-1995. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A. S. No. 112 of 1995, in the Court of II Additional District Judge, ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 22-6-2006. Hence, this CMSA.

( 3 ) SRI S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that his clients were set ex parte, only on the ground that their counsel reported no instructions, and that the trial court did not clarify as to whether the counsel issued any notice to the parties. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh and another v. Joginder Singh and others, he contends that a material irregularity has crept into the judgment of the trial court. He submits that though a specific issue was raised before the lower appellate court, it was not at all adverted to.

( 4 ) SRI M. R. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the appellants did not exhibit the required diligence, in pursuing the proceedings, and they cannot take advantage of their own indifference. He submits that having engaged an Advocate, the appellants expected to be in contact with him, and they failed, in this regard. He made submissions on merits also.

( 5 ) THE. P. filed by the respondents 1 to 7 was mainly directed against respondent no. 24. The predecessors of the appellants were purchasers of two items of properties, under documents marked as Exs. A-3 and a-4. According to them, the sales were effected by respondent No. 24, to clear the debts, in favour of one Sri Potti Venkata

subbaiah. The trial court did not feel the necessity of examining the genuineness, or otherwise of the sales under Exs. A-3 and a-4, on account of the fact that the counsel engaged by the purchasers (sic. Predecessors) of the appellants, reported no instructions.

( 6 ) ONCE a party engages an Advocate, the latter is under obligation to pursue the proceedings, on behalf of his client. If for any reason, he does not find it feasible to continue his appearance or assistance, he is required to put the client on notice, and inform the same to the Court. The obligation placed on an Advocate, under Order III C. P. C. , subsists till the termination of the proceedings, unless it is brought to an end, in accordance with law. Except that he has reported no instructions, the counsel for the appellants in the trial court, did not either issue notice to the petitioners nor filed an application before the trial court, to relieve him, of his obligation. In Malkial Singhs case (supra), the Supreme court held that a party cannot be set ex parte, on the sole basis that his Advocate reported no instructions. The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court, in that judgment, squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

( 7 ) THE appellants are also to be blamed, to a substantial extent. The respondents/creditors have been pursuing their remedy for a very long time. The subject matter covered not only the sales, evidenced by exs. A-3 and A-4, but other aspects also. This court is of the view that the validity or otherwise of the sales covered by Exs. A-3 and A-4, needs to be considered afre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document