Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. There were two suits before the District Munsif, the one he dismissed for default on account of the non-appearance of the plaintiff, and in the other he passed an ex parte decree on account of the defendant not having appeared. The plaintiff in the first suit and the defendant in the second suit happen to be the same person. Applications were made to the District Munsif to set aside the order of dismissal for default in the first suit and to set aside the ex parle decree in the second suit. The District Munsif refused to allow these applications, but on appeal the District Judge made orders favorable to the applicant. The propriety of these orders is challenged in the revision petitions before me.

2. A Vakil appeared for the party in default and stated he had no instructions. It is argued that notwithstanding this the pleader must be held to have appeared on his clients behalf and, therefore, the provisions of Order 9 do not apply. I am utterly unable to follow this argument. Order 3, Rule 1, so far as it is material for the present purpose, runs thus :-" Any appearance in any Court required by law to be made by a party may be made by a pleader duly ap