Judgment 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the advocate tendered the same vakalat, which was held by the Court not to be a proper vakalat, as the advocate had withdrawn it when he reported no instructions in the suit.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 District Judge affirmed the order of the District Munsiff. I have no doubt that the Courts below decided this matter correctly. When a vakil reports no instructions, it means that he withdraws his vakalat. If authority was necessary for that it is found very clearly in Manickam v. Mahudum Bathummal1, when the learned Chief Justice in several parts of his judgment equates the reporting of no instructions to the withdrawal of the vakalat. The learned Counsel for the petitioner here relies on Bachubai v. Ibrahim2, and Jwala Devi v. Bhrigunath Sahai3. In these cases, the only question that arose was whether, where the suit had been decreed ex parte, the same vakalat could be used in an application to set aside the ex parte decree. As the learned District Judge pointed out with regard to Bachubai v. Ibrahim2, the learned Judges there were not considering a case in which the plaintiff’ had reported no instructions. If they had, there could have been no question of utilising the same vakalat for another proceeding; for even before the suit itself was decreed the vakalat had ceased to have any value, because it had been withdrawn. The petition is dismissed with costs. K.C. ----- Petition dismissed.