TURLAPATL NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. KANCHETI NARASIMHAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O. S. No, 100/69 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Narasaraopet; As the appellants and their advocate were absent, the suit was dismissed for default on 12-7-73 The advocate who was engaged by the appellants to prosecute the suit and who filed a vikalatnama in the suit, filed a petition under Order 9, Kule 9 C. P. C. for setting aside the default order. The lower court dismissed the application on the ground that the petition is not maintainable for want of a fresh vakalath This appeal is directed against the said order of dismissal.

(2.) The simple question for decision in this appeal is whether after the dismissal of a suit for default, a fresh vakalathnama is necessary to be filed by the; advocate engaged by the plaintiffs In the suitfor instituting a petition under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C.

(3.) Answer to the question is directly available in Order 3 Rule 4, sub-rule (2) C.P.C. which reads : '