JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The plaintiff Lal Singh instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ferozepore, for a declaration that he was the owner of certain property. The suit was fixed for hearing for 25th May 1926, but on that date the Court was closed on account of the prevalence of plague. On 31st May 1926. separate notices were issued to the plaintiff and his pleader, Lala Khairati Ram, that the case would be heard on the 15th June 1926. The notice sent to the plaintiff could not be served on him as he had gone to China but was delivered to his minor son, aged 16. On the notice sent to Lala Khairati Ram he noted on the 11th June 1926, that the plaintiff's Mukhtar should be served. No steps were, however, taken to serve the plaintiff's Mukhtar. On 15th June 1926, there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8, Civil P.C.

2. On 14th August 1926, the plaintiff's Mukhtar through the same pleader Lala Khairati Ram filed an application for having the dismissal in default set aside, stating that when the case was adjourned on 25th May he was informed that fresh notices would be sent informing the parties of the dates on which the case would be heard but that no such notice had been received by him and that on going to the Court on that morning he had discovered that the suit had been dismissed in default on 15th June 1926. This application was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge and his order was affirmed on appeal by the District Judge.

3. A petition for revision has been filed in this Court and Mr. Mehr Chand Mahajan has argued that in this case there had been no proper service of the adjourned date of hearing and the lower Courts have acted illegally and with material irregularity in not restoring the suit. Mr. Kishen Dayal for the respondent has challenged the finding of the learned District Judge that service on the minor son of the plaintiff was not effective, but I see no force in his contention arid uphold that finding.

4. Mr. Mehr Chand's main contention is that the learned District Judge is in error in holding that service on Lala Khairati Ram was good service on the petitioner under Order 3, Rule 5, Civil P.C., He argues that Order 3, Rule 5, Civil P.C., merely raises a presumption that notice to the pleader is notice to the party, but that this is a rebuttable presumption and in this particular case it had been rebutted by the endorsement of the pleader on the back of the notice that the plaintiff's mukhtar should be informed. In support of this contention the learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported as Sandya v. Upendra Chandra Sinha 13 C.W.N. 142. After giving full consideration to his arguments, I am of opinion that they are devoid of all force. Even if the ruling lays down the law correctly a matter on which I wish to express no opinion in this judgment there is no doubt that in this case the circumstances are such that notice to the pleader must be considered to be notice to the party. Lala Khairati Ram was the duly appointed pleader of the plaintiff and had been conducting the case up to 25th May 1926. He had not intimated to the Court that he was no longer appearing in the case nor had he taken any steps to get his vakalatnama cancelled. On the other hand, we find that the application for restoration was signed and presented by him on 14th August 1926, and it was he who preferred the appeal against the order of dismissal in the Court of the District Judge. There can be no manner of doubt that in these circumstances service on him was equivalent to service on the plaintiff and he could not withdraw merely by writing on the notice that service should be effected on the mukhtar.

5. I, therefore, hold that the decision of the learned District is right and accordingly I dismiss the petition for revision with costs.