JUDGMENT- N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Respondent herein had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 996 of 1985 claiming for possession of an open space admeasuring 341/2 X 261/2 feets, forming a portion in House No. 2-9-24 situate at Aurangpura, Aurangabad, against the present petitioner. Respondent herein filed an application which was at Ex. 45 in the said suit for conversion of that suit as a Small Cause Suit which came to be rejected. An application bearing No. 94 of 1989 was filed by the present respondent before the District Judge, Aurangabad, under section 24 of Civil Procedure Code praying that the Regular Civil Suit No. 996 of 1985 by withdrawn from the file of the Judge to whom it was assigned and also prayed that it be converted into a Small Cause Suit whereas the learned District Judge was pleased to reject the first prayer, he was pleased to allow the second prayer and ordered that the suit be converted as a Small Cause Suit. Thereafter the suit was numbered as Small Cause Suit No. 273 of 1989 and was listed in the Small Causes. 3. After the suit was converted as a Small Cause Suit and was listed as such, no fresh notice was served on defendant-petitioner but notice was served on his Advocate who had appeared on his behalf in Regular Civil Suit No. 996 of 1985. The Advocate representing the defendant-respondent gave a No Instruction Purshis and thereafter ex parte decree came to be passed. This decree came to be appealed against by the present defendant in Regular Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1990 before the District Judge, Aurangabad, and on 24-2-1992, the learned Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, was pleased to dismiss the appeal. The said decree has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. Shri K.C. Nawander, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though by virtue of the provisions of Order III, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a service on the Advocate representing the party during the proceedings is a proper service, a suit cannot be said to have been continued when it is converted as a Small Cause Suit and is directed to be tried by a Judge who has the power to try such suits. Therefore, there was no notice to the defendant in the small cause suit and the decree passed is a nullity. Therefore, there was no notice to the defendant in the small cause suit and the decree passed is a nullity. Shri K.V. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the defendant very much knew that his suit is converted into a small cause suit and had sufficient knowledge about continuation of the proceedings. The jurisdiction to try the small cause suit is also invested in the same Judge and, therefore, when the parties knew that the proceeding is continued and when an Advocate/Pleader appears for the defendant and later gives No Instruction Purshis it cannot be said that the decree was passed without giving a notice to the defendant. 5. The Vakalatnama filed by an Advocate or a Pleader continues during all proceedings arising out of the suit in which the Vakalatnama is filed and the power of the Advocate continues during all such proceedings or until the power is determined with the leave of the Court. Therefore, an Advocate need not file a fresh Vakalatnama in a Miscellaneous Appeal or a Regular Appeal or in an execution petition or in review application if he was appearing on behalf of the party in the original suit. The subsistence of the relationship arising out of the contract between the Pleader and the client has been explained by explanation to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 in Order III. This covers application for review of the decree or order, application under section 144 or under section 152 of the Code, an appeal from the decree or order in the suit, for applying for copies of the documents or return of the documents in the suit and in the above proceedings and for obtaining refund of money in those proceeding, etc. but when a suit is held to be not competent for some reason or the other and its nature is changed and it is directed that it should be re-numbered and be tried by a Judge who has power to hear that suit, it cannot be said that such a suit is a continuation of the old suit. but when a suit is held to be not competent for some reason or the other and its nature is changed and it is directed that it should be re-numbered and be tried by a Judge who has power to hear that suit, it cannot be said that such a suit is a continuation of the old suit. Conversion of a Regular Civil Suit into a Small Cause Suit is not continuation of the Regular Civil Suit and for that purpose it is a fresh suit and, if it is so, the provisions of Order III, Rule 5 which casts a duty on the Advocate to accept service on behalf of his client is no more in existence, if fresh Vakalatnama has not been given to the said Advocate by the party engaging him in the Regular Civil Suit. Though a Judge hearing the Regular Civil Suit may himself have power to hear the Small Cause Suit but, nevertheless, it is a transfer of a suit from one Court to another Court. 6. In (Krishnaji v. Wamanrao)1, A.I.R. 1977 Bombay 36, the question for consideration before this Court was whether an Advocate who appeared in a suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chiplun, continues to hold the power on behalf of his client when the suit came to be transferred to another Court i.e. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed, after transfer of the suit. This Court was pleased to hold that the authority of an Advocate in the original Court does not continue if the suit is transferred to another Court. It is true that in the instant case the case has not been transferred from Aurangabad to another Court and it is likely that the same Judge who was hearing the Regular Civil Suit may have power to hear the Small Cause Suit but, nevertheless, a Judge sitting as a Small Cause Judge, having invested with the powers under Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is a different Court than the Judge hearing the Regular Civil Suit. Therefore, a notice which is served on the Advocate after conversion of a Regular Civil Suit into a Small Cause Suit is no notice in the eye of law. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Therefore, a notice which is served on the Advocate after conversion of a Regular Civil Suit into a Small Cause Suit is no notice in the eye of law. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad, on 6-3-1990 in Small Cause Suit No. 273 of 1989 and confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, on 24-2-1992 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1990 is hereby suit aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Judge to hear the Small Cause Suit afresh but looking to the fact that the litigation has consumed about seven years time, I direct, with the consent of both the Counsel before me, that the Small Cause Suit be heard and disposed of within a period of 30 days from today. Shri Nawandar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before me submitted that he waives notice and his client would be present before the learned Small Cause Judge on Monday the 20th July, 1992 and shall take furher date from the learned Judge. The appearance of the defendant on 20th July, 1992, shall be taken to be a service of the summons for final disposal of the Small Cause Suit and the learned Judge, after giving due opportunity to the parties, will decide the suit afresh but within the time as directed. Rule made absolute in the above terms but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.