It is to be noted that these proceedings were initially filed as Civil Revision Application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, read with Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. When the matter was called out on 29.08.2008, this Court has in view of the judgment in the case of Dilip Bidesh vs. Shiv Gopal, reported at 2005 (4) Mh. L.J. 967, found that said revision was not maintainable. The revision applicant then sought permission to convert revision into a writ petition and that permission was accordingly granted by reasoned order, after noticing the fact that revision was filed way back in 1995 and the matter was going on before various Courts since 1986.

2. After conversion of revision into present writ petition, the matter has been again listed for final hearing. Shri Panpalia, Advocate, who had filed Vakalatnama for the respondent, has stated that on 24.01.2002 itself, he filed pursis vide Stamp No. 679 of 2002, seeking leave to withdraw Vakalatnama in view of the letter of client dated 15.1.2002 annexed with that pursis. The perusal of xerox copy of that letter on record shows that the respondent instructed Shri Panpalia, Advocate to hand over the papers and file with him to Shri G.B. Lohiya, Advocate and also to give no objection to said advocate. Shri Panpalia, Advocate states that accordingly, he had handed over the papers and no objection. Nobody has thereafter appeared for the respondent. In view of the statement made by Shri Panpalia, Advocate, he is discharged from the matter.

3. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel states that the controversy in this writ petition is very narrow. He also states that in view of the judgment of this Court dated 29.08.2008 in Civil Revision Application No. 654 of 1995, the controversy stands concluded in his favour. As such, the only question which arose was whether it is necessary to issue notice of the matter again to the respondent after its conversion into a writ petition.

4. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Noor Abdul Jaleel vs. V. Achuthan , reported at AIR 1982 Kant. 237, judgment of learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Krishnamurthy vs. Y. Ramamurthi, reported at AIR 1957 Andhra Pradesh 654 and judgment of learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in Maya Devi & Anr. V/s. Hari Singh , reported at 2002 A I H C NOC 26.

5. The perusal of Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court shows that the Division Bench there found that Civil Procedure Code, particularly Order 3, Rule 4 of CPC does not require Court to invite a party whose advocate out of disgust retires from the case. It has been observed that as per sound principle, before permitting an advocate to retire, the Court has to enquire whether the advocate has intimated his intention to client, not to proceed with the case. But after the advocate is permitted to retire, the Court is not required to adjourn the case and issue notice to party in default. The other discussion is about the enquiry to be conducted after permitting the advocate to retire and the discretionary powers in the matter.

6. In Madhura Krishnamurthy vs. Y. Ramamurthi (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has observed that Vakalatnama in favour of an advocate in proceedings seeking leave to sue in forma pauperis, does not come to an end till the suit is properly disposed of. If the proceedings are returned by the Court for want of jurisdiction, the Vakalatnama can be used for other purposes in the same matter. The High Court has observed that such Vakalatnama could be used along with other papers returned back by the Court. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High court in Maya Devi & Anr. vs. Hari Singh (supra) has observed that when the application for restoration of suit is dismissed in default, it is part of proceedings in the suit and advocate for the defendant does not require fresh appointment to contest such application. With the r