Judgment :- 1. This appeal is against the fair and decretal orders of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras made in I.A. No. 9439 of 1997 in O.S. No. 1271 of 1996 dated 30.4.97 rejecting the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 11.2.1997 made in the suit. 2. The suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,03,130.33 with interest at 24.75 per cent per annum. M/s. P.T.S. Narendravasan and D. Gurumurthy have filed Vakalat on behalf of the petitioner. But on the relevant date that is on 11.2.1997, they reported no instruction. However, they filed a petition on 21.2.1997 to set aside the ex parte decree, under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, without a fresh vakalat from the parties. The petition to set aside the ex parte decree was filed on 21.2.1997 and it came up for orders of the Court on 30.4.1997. On that day, the trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that since the counsel for the petitioner has reported no instruction the petition was not maintainable without filing fresh vakalat for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that at least an opportunity should have been given to rectify the defects. But without giving any opportunity to the appellant straightway rejecting the petition is tantamount to causing serious injustice to the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted the following decisions and contended that without fresh vakalat, same counsel cannot appear for the appellant. 1) The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R. Srinivasan (AIR 1992 Madras 40). 2) Pavoorayil Mamu alias Muhammad v. Kunhimon Alias Muhammad and others ( 1955 (2) MLJ 124 =68 L.W. 393). 3) KrishnaPillai and others v. Ranganatham Pillai ( 1950(2) MLJ 759 ). 5. In the citation third supra, learned single Judge of this Court has held as follows: “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. Mabudum Pathummal ( 1924 (47) MLJ 398 ), when the learned Chief Justice in several parts of his judgment equates the reporting of no instructions to the withdrawal of the vakalat. If authority was necessary for that it is found very clearly in Manickam v. Mabudum Pathummal ( 1924 (47) MLJ 398 ), 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. Ibrahim (1922 I.L.R., 47, Bombay) and Jwala Devi v. Bhrigunath Sahab (ILR (1944) All. 592). 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. Ibrahim 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 said principle laid down in the judgment had been followed by another learned single Judge of this Court reported in Pavoorayil Mamu Alias Muhammad v. Kunhimon Alias Muhammad and others (1955 (2) MLJ, 124=68 L.W. 393). “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 penalise clients who had in fact instructed an advocate at one stage of the litigation, and immediately ratified his authority after he reported no 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”. Even though the earlier judgment reported in 1950 (2) MLJ 759 , has not been referred to, the principle has not been reinstated by the learned Judge in the case cited supra. 6. 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”. Even though the earlier judgment reported in 1950 (2) MLJ 759 , has not been referred to, the principle has not been reinstated by the learned Judge in the case cited supra. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent states that it is true that the vakalat filed by the advocates has got revoked since the advocates reported no instructions. But on that ground alone, the petition can be rejected after it has been numbered and come before the Court. I do not know whether the appellant was present or not on that day. But instead of straightway rejecting the petition, a chance should have been given to the appellant for appearance by giving a date. Even on that day, if the appellant was absent in person or through advocate, the petition could have been rejected. But that was not done so by the learned trial Judge. 7. After signing the affidavit, the party would have been under the impression that his presence was not necessary for the hearing of the petition to set aside the ex parte decree as the advocate has agreed to appear. It is not the usual practice of the Courts to insist upon the presence of the parties for the disposal of the interlocutory applications. Therefore, the appellant could have gained impression as mentioned above. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R. Srinivasan (AIR 1992 Madras 40) a Division Bench of this Court has referred to the judgment reported in 1955 (2) MLJ 124 . 8. After considering the other cases along with the case reported in 1955 (2) MLJ 124 the Division Bench of this Court has incidentally held in AIR 1992 Madras 40 as follows: “From the pronouncements which we have adverted to as above, what has been expatiated over Order 3 Rule 4(2) is that while the determination of the appointment of a counsel save in the case of his demise of his client or termination of all proceedings should be in writing and with the leave of the Court, that leave of the Court need not assume any formality of a particular character. The leave of the Court could also be implied when the determination of the appointment is taken note of and acted upon b y the Court. The rule expressed in Order 3, Rule 4 of the Code is one intended to facilitate the prosecution of the proceedings through counsel, to serve the cause of the parties, and certainly it should not be worked to bring in a situation, which puts the parties to inconvenience and hardship, on account of insistence over undue formalities in the determination of the authority given to an earlier counsel. On account of any technical formality to be insisted in this connection, the parties cause shoul d not suffer. The experience of the Court also certainly favours a liberal construction, which in our view is a proper construction of the set of expressions “with the leave of the Court” occurring in sub Rule 2 of rule 4 of Order 3 of the Code”. According to the learned Judges, on account of any technical formality to be insisted upon, the parties cause should not suffer. 9. In these circumstances, I am of the view that even though the view expressed by the trial Court that the counsel who filed vakalat has reported no instructions, and he cannot appear for the appellant without fresh vakalat is correct, an opportunity should be given to the appellant to give fresh vakalat to the same advocate, since, in this case, it appears that he has been engaged again. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the Order of the learned IV Additional Judge is set aside. I.A. No. 9439 of 1997 is restored to his file and the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras is directed to give an opportunity to the appellant to give vakalat to his advocate and dispose of the same on merits, within a period of four months from today. 11. The appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 17684 of 1997 is dismissed as unnecessary.