Judgment The petitioner is the fifth defendant in an ancient suit, O.S.No. 677 of 1949 which was dismissed for default on 2nd February, 1951. The advocate for the two plaintiffs who had filed a vakalat on their behalf moved for an adjournment of the suit that day and on it being refused reported no instructions. The advocate then filed on 7th February, 1951, I.A.No.399 of 1951 to restore the suit to file, supported by an affidavit from an alleged agent of the plaintiffs who, the advocates agreed, were in Malaya. Objection was taken in the counter to this application that it was invalidly presented, as the advocate did not file a fresh vakalat, as he was indeed legally and technically bound to do his engagement having been terminated by his reporting no instructions. The advocate filed a fresh vakalat on 10th March, 1951. The District Munsif dismissed I.A.No.399 of of 1951 on nth July, 1951, holding that it was not validly presented within the 30 days prescribed without a fresh vakalat by the advocate. In appeal, C.M.A.No. 18 of 1951, the Subordinate Judge set this order aside and remanded I.A.No.399 of 1951 for disposal on its merits. Mr.Sundara Aiyar would support the order of the District Munsif by a Bench decision Ananga Bhima Deo v. Mohana Deo 1, which held that an execution petition presented by a pleader without any vakalat at all being filed either at the time of presentation or at any later stage and on which nothing had really been done was not a validly presented execution petition which would serve as a step in aid of execution. In Machireddi Narappa v. Subbarayudu 2, Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., took the view that although an advocate files an execution petition without filing a vakalat as a result of a bona fide mistake and the vakalat is later filed before final orders are passed on the execution petition, the presentation of the execution petition was not incurable, improper or illegal and that the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the execution petition was not ousted. With respect I am in complete agreement with this view. In the present case the advocate did file a vakalat from the plaintiffs in the suit but it was terminated in law when he reported no instructions. Strictly and technically he should have filed a fresh vakalat along with his restoration application. With respect I am in complete agreement with this view. In the present case the advocate did file a vakalat from the plaintiffs in the suit but it was terminated in law when he reported no instructions. Strictly and technically he should have filed a fresh vakalat along with his restoration application. Order 3, rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, is primarily intended to protect clients from anybody other than advocates authorised by them appearing, acting and making representations on their behalf and it certainly was not intended to penalize clients who had in fact instructed an advocate at one stage of the litigation, and immediately ratified his authority after he reported to instructions when his failure to file a fresh vakalat was brought to notice. The advocate is really more to blame than the client for filing his restoration application without writing to his clients and obtaining from them a fresh vakalat. I see no reason for any interference in revision with the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, which is sought to be set aside on what appears to me a very technical ground. It is regrettable that this suit, O.S.No.677 of 1949, has been stayed for nearly three years pending the disposal of this revision petition. I.A.No.399 of 1951 will now be given as expeditious a disposal The petition is dismissed with costs. R.M. ----- Petition dismissed.