PANNALAL Vs. FIRM BALLARAM BASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Alwar, dated 15th May, 1956, allowing an application for restoration of a suit which had been dismissed for default.

(2.) THE plaintiff, after the dismissal Of the suit for default, made an application for its restoration accompanied by two affidavits in support of the grounds mentioned in the petition for setting aside (?) restoration. Notice was issued to Mr. Umrao Lal, advocate for the defendants, who on 4th May, 1956, wrote on the back of the notice that his power to represent the defendants had come to an end by the order of dismissal of the suit. The Court, however, did not agree with the view of Mr. Umrao Lal, considered service on him as sufficient service on the defendants, accepted the affidavits, produced on behalf of the plaintiff, and directed restoration 'by order of 15th May, 1966. The defendants have come in revision.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the defendants that the order of dismissal of the suit amounted to a termination of the proceedings, and as the authority granted to a lawyer terminates with the termination of the proceedings, as mentioned in order III, Rule 4, Sub-rule (2), C. p. C. , the notice served on Mr. Umrao Lal was not a good service on the defendants. The contention Is without force. An application for restoration of a suit dismissed for default is a part of the proceedings in the suit, and on the same reasoning the advocate of the defendant does not require a fresh power to contest the application. A direct authority is to be found in U Oak v. Ma Khim. AIR 1941 Rang 314 (A), where it has been held that an application to set aside an ex parte decree or dismissal order is part of the proceeding in a suit and so in the same way to oppose or consent to such an application being also a part of the proceeding in a suit, a counsel need not have fresh authority for that Purpose. The view of Mr. Umrao Lal that his authority had terminated by order of dismissal of the suit was not correct. The Court was, therefore, right that the service on Mr. Umrao Lal was a valid service en the defendants.