The act of engaging the counsel on behalf of the Principal will survive in spite of the agent having died, and the agency of the agent appointed on behalf of the Principal has never been removed or came to an end.

, J.

1. The short question raised in this revision petition is, could final decree be passed on the application moved by the Attorney after the death of the Attorney The application has been dismissed solely on the ground that since the Attorney had died, no final decree could be passed, as the counsel engaged by him to represent the principal is left with no authority to continue the proceedings. It is not disputed that another Power of Attorney has already been filed on behalf the Principal also, though it has been filed after the impugned decision.

2. The learned trial Court relied on Sec.201 of the Indian Contract Act to hold, that on the death of the agent, the agency came to an end. It was further observed that fresh Power of Attorney executed in favour of Amrit Kaur was invalid. "resultantly, her appointing Mr. D. B. Bhaila, Advocate, was also not valid and he cannot be permitted to prosecute the case. As a consequence of the above finding, it was observed that there is nobody to represent the decree-holder to prosecute the application for passings final decree. Even the prayer for time to present the decree holder personally or her duly authorised Attorney was declined.

3. This Court in Business Known as Girshan Industrial Co. (Private) Ltd V/s. Interchem Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. , 1970 Current L. J, 387, observed as under :" held that the Attorney is merely an agent of the Principal and what he does, he does for the principal. So long as the principal is alive, any act done by the attorney or his counsel is a valid act and continues to be valid irrespective of the fact whether the attorney is alive or dead. But the counsel for the attorney cannot act if the principal is dead. "

4. In my considered view, I find no ground to take any other view than the one taken in the said authority With which I fully agree Nothing has been pointed out in the impugned order to show as to how the law laid down by this Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. A reading of Sec.201 of the Indian Contract Act makes it clear that on the death of an agent the agency conies to an end but does not obliterate the acts done by the agent on behalf of the Principal ! during the tenure of his subsisting agency There is no gainsaying that the Advocate was appointed by the agent on behalf of the Principal when the agency was subsisting The Principal is alive. The act of engaging the counsel on behalf of the Principal will survive in spite of the agent having died. The act of the agent appointing a further agent was complete and the agency of the agent appointed on behalf of the Principal has never been removed or came to an end.

6. I find no reason nor has been pointed out as to why Mr. D. B Bhalla, Advocate, could not prosecute the case. In case of any defect in Power of Attorney, he may not be permitted to act but he could well prosecute the case even on the oral instructions of the Principal.

7. I find no plausible reason for not granting even a reasonable opportunity to meet such a hyper-technical objection of the judgment debtor by allowing time at least to produce a valid Power of Attorney or to produce the Principal.

8. For the reasons recorded above, I find no substance in the reasoning given by the trial Court in dismissing the application for passing the final decree.9 Consequently, the Revision Petition Is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the passing of the final decree in accordance with law.10. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on August 20, 1990.