When this petition was called for hearing, it was brought to my notice that Mr. V.Suryanarayana who represtented the respondent passed away several months ago. No notice of his death as required by Order 239 of the Standing Orders of the High Court office appears to have been issued to the respondent. No one apparently has appeared from the office of the late Mr. Suryanarayana or troubled about looking after the work that he had left behind, a sad commentary on the existing system of advocates working singly one which ensures no continuity of legal service either to the client or to the Court. Instead of granting an adjournment in a civil revision petition of 1950 to enable a notice, death notice as it is called, to be issued by the office, I heard Mr. Balaparameswara Rao in support of the petitioner on its merits as to whether it was really sustainable.

2. The suit was one for recovery of Rs. 851 being the value of bricks supplied at Rs. 25 per thousand. The main point of law relied on is that the plaintiff summoned a witness but did not examine him and the Court then put this witness into the box and examined him as Court witness 1. It would appear that largely on the te