The authority of a pleader to represent a client continues until it is terminated in writing with the leave of the Court, and the client is not absolved of their duty to appear based on the pleader's oral statements.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh dismissing toe appellants application under Order IX, Rul e9 of the Civil P. C.

( 2 ) M/s. Bijli Cotton Mills (Private) Ltd. carrying on business at Hathras in district Aligarh, filed a suit No. 55 of 1967 against M/s. Chhaganmal Bastimal, a partnership firm, carrying on business at Mewar Bazar, Beawar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan), Along with the defendant firm Sri mishri Lal and Sri Gheesu Lal, the partners of the firm, were also arrayed as defendants. The plaintiff claimed relief for a decree of Rupees 4,85,000/- against the defendants. 2-A. The defendants appeared, filed written statement and contested the suit denying the liability.

( 3 ) ON 8-7-1970 issues were framed, but the suit could not proceed for one reason or the other. On 6-2-1971 counsel for both the parties made a joint statement before the Court that hearing of the suit be stayed till the final decision of the suit No. 47 of 1966, Chhaganmal Bastimal v. Bijli cotton Mills (Private) Limited pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Ajmer. On the statement of the counsel for the parties, the Court stayed the hearing of the suit. The defendants-respondents suit filed at Ajmer was decided finally on 25-5-1971; thereafter proceedings in the suit before the Civil Judge, Aligarh proceeded. The suit was fixed for final bearing on several dates but for one reason or the other, it could not be taken up. Ultimately on 19-8-1974 the suit was taken up for final hearing. The plaintiffs counsel appeared and made a request for adjournment of the case. The Court refused to adjourn the hearing whereupon the plaintiffs counsel Sri S. P. Jaiswal, Advocate, stated that he had no instructions, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit under Order IX, Rul e8 of the Civil P. C.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff filed an application for setting aside the order dated 19-8-1974 and for restoration of the suit to its original number. The Additional Civil Judge dismissed the application by his order dated 23-11-1974. Hence this appeal.

( 5 ) THE Court below dismissed the plaintiffs application on two grounds. Firstly, it held that the application made under Order IX, Rul e9 of the Civil P. C. was not maintainable as it was presented by Sri S. P. Jaiswal, Advocate, who had no authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff. Secondly, the plaintiff had failed to give any sufficient reason for his absence. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that Vakalatnama filed by the plaintiff in favour of Sri S. P. Jaiswal, advocate, continued to remain in force even after his statement that he had no instructions till it was withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of Order III, Rul 4 of the Civil P. C. Since the authority of Sri Jais-wal had not been withdrawn by the plaintiff and as Sri Jaiswal himself had not terminated his authority in accordance with the provisions of Order III Rul e4 of the Civil P. C, Sri Jaiswal continued to be the plaintiffs counsel and he had authority to present the application for setting aside the order dated 19-8-1974.

( 6 ) ORDER III, Rule 4 of the Civil P. C. provides for appointment of pleader and termination of his authority. Sub-rule (2) lays down that appointment of a pleader shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client. Thus, once an Advocate is engaged as a pleader by a client, the authority of the Advocate to represent his client continues to remain in force until it is determined with the leave of the Court in writing signed by the client or the pleader. In the absence of a written termination of the relationship of the client and the pleader, the pleader is not absolved of his duty to appear on behalf of his client. Any sta