( 1 ) THE order passed on 19. 1. 2000 by learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal by the plaintiff/appellant. By the impugned order the Single Judge has declined to take cognizance of the application filed by the plaintiff under order 9 Rule 4 CPC. Operative part of the impugned order reads as under:-

"i consider it essential that a vakalatnama should not only have been signed by a party to the litigation but should also have been filed in Court. In the absence of its filing in distinction to its execution, an Advocate cannot act on behalf of a party. The learned counsel for the Defendants have submitted that the Plaintiff ought to have been present on the date of the dismissal of the suit, and no explanation has been given in the application to justify his absence. It is firmly established that a part, having entrusted his case to his Advocate, need not be present on every hearing of the case. I cannot also accept the submission that the application to set the dismissal aside must be filed by the Plaintiff personally.

IN the absence of the application having been signed by the Applicant/plaintiff or his duty constituted attorney or his Advocate. It is