Short Note : This is a revision by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit on 21st October 1974. The Court directed issue of summons to the defendant and the case was fixed for 9th December 1974. Process-fee; was paid and summons was issued to the defendant. On 9th December 1974, the summons was not received back. The Court directed issue of fresh summons on payment of fresh process-fee. Fresh process-fee was not paid by the plaintiff. The case was again taken up on 28th January 1975. Even on that date the summons issued was not received back. The Court again ordered issue of fresh summons. Again the plaintiff did not pay fresh process-fee. The case was then taken up on 10th March 1975. It appears that on this date the summons that was issued on the first occasion was received back unserved. The plaintiff was absent on this date. One Shri Sahu, Advocate appeared holding the brief of Shri Pratap Agrawal who was the counsel engaged by the plaintiff. Shri Sahu was not heard by the Court on the ground that no power was filed by him. The Court also took notice of the fact that the plaintiff failed to pay fresh process-fee as directed earlier. Thereupon, the Court dismissed the suit under Order 9, rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Held : On 10th March 1975 when the case was taken up, the plaintiff's presence was not necessary. The suit was not fixed for hearing on that date. Shri Sahu appeared before the lower Court for explaining as to why process fee was not paid. Shri Sahu was holding the brief of Shri Pratap Agrawal to plead on behalf of the plaintiff. Shri Sahu did not appear for doing any act on behalf of the plaintiff. He only appeared to plead the reason for non-payment of process-fee. In the circumstances, Shri Sahu was not required to file any Vakalatnama. A Vakalatnama under Order 3, rule 4, of the Code is necessary only when a pleader is engaged for doing any act on behalf of a party. The Court, therefore, acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to hear Shri Sahu as to why process-fee was not paid by the plaintiff. A Vakalatnama under Order 3, rule 4, of the Code is necessary only when a pleader is engaged for doing any act on behalf of a party. The Court, therefore, acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to hear Shri Sahu as to why process-fee was not paid by the plaintiff. The Court was also wrong in applying Order 9, rule 5, of the Code, Rule 5 of Order 9, as it then stood, applies when the plaintiffs fails to apply for issue of a fresh summons for a period of one month from the date of the return made to the Court by the officer ordinarily certifying to the Court returns made by the serving officers that the summons had been returned unserved. In the instant case, although the report of the process-server is dated 26th November 1974, it is obvious that this cannot be taken to be the date of the return made to the Court of the service or non-service of summons relevant to rule 5 of Order 9. I have already stated that the summons was not received back even on 28th January 1975. Althouga there is no endorsement on the summon, it appears that it was received back for the first time and placed before the Court on 10th March 1975. In these circumstances, there was no default in payment of any process-fee under rule 5 of Order 9. The Court acted in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the suit. Revision allowed.