KRISHNA PILLAI Vs. RANGANATHAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BECAUSE his clients were not ready, their advocate, through another advocate, reported no instructions. The suit was then decreed ex parte. In an application to set aside the ex parte decree, the advocate tendered the same Vakalath, which was held by the Ct not to be a proper vakalath, as the advocate had withdrawn it when he reported no instructions in the suit. The application to set aside the ex parte decree was therefore dismissed. In appeal, the learned Dist Judge affirmed the order of the District Munsif.

(2.) I have no doubt that the Cts below decided this matter correctly. When a vakil re ports no instructions, it means that he with draws his vakalath. If authority was necessary for that it is found very clearly in 'Manick-am v. Mahudum Bathummal', 47 Mad 819 : (AIR (12) 1925 Mad 21 FB), when the learned Chief Justice in several parts of his judgment equates the reporting of no instructions to the withdrawal of the vakalath. The learned counsel for the petnr here relies on 'Bachubai v. Ibrahim', 47 Bom 11 : (AIR (9) 1922 Bom 207) & 'Mt. Jwala Devi v. Bhrigunath Sahai', ILR 1944 All 592 : (AIR (31) 1944 All 238). In these cases, the only question arose was whether, where the suit had been decreed ex parte, the same vakalath could be used in an application to set aside the ex parte decree. As the learned Dist Judge pointed out with regard to 'Bachubai v. Ibrahim', 47 Bom 11 : (AIR (9) 1922 Bom 207), the learned Judges there were not considering a case in which the plain tiff had reported no instructions. If they had, there could have been no question of utilising the same vakalath for another proceeding; for even before the suit itself was decreed the vakalath had ceased to have any value, be cause it had been withdrawn. The petition is dismissed with costs.