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the advocate tendered the same Vakalath, which was held by the Ct not to be a proper vakalath, as the advocate had withdrawn it when he reported no instructions in the suit.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 reports no instructions, it means that he withdraws his vakalath. If authority was necessary for that it is found very clearly in 'Manick-am v. Mahudum Bathummal', 47 Mad 819 :AIR 1925 Mad 21 , when the learnedChief Justice in several parts of his judgmentequates the reporting of no instructions to thewithdrawal of the vakalath. The learned counsel for the petnr here relies on 'Bachubai v.Ibrahim', 47 Bom 11 : AIR 1922 Bom207 & 'Mt. Jwala Devi v. Bhrigunath Sahai : AIR1944All238 . Inthese cases, the only question arose waswhether, where the suit had been decreed exparte, the same vakalath could be used in anapplication to set aside the ex parte decree. Asthe learned Dist Judge pointed out with regardto 'Bachubai v. Ibrahim', 47 Bom 11 : AIR 1922 Bom 207, the learned Judges therewere not considering a case in which the plaintiff had reported no instructions. If they had,there could have been no question of utilisingthe same vakalath for another proceeding; foreven before the suit itself was decreed thevakalath had ceased to have any value, because it had been withdrawn. The petition isdismissed with costs.