JUDGMENT Shri R.K. Sharma, X Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, by impugned order dated 24.9.2001 in MJC No. 6/2001, has restored a Civil Suit under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the Advocate for the plaintiff could not appear in the Court as he was busy in elections in the District Bar Association. The Advocate has drawn my attention to Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. ( AIR 2001 SC 1739 ), in which it is held that an Advocate has no locus standi to file writ petition in his own name and substitute himself for his client. However, situation was different here. The plaintiff was being represented by the Advocate and was appearing through the Advocate. In such a case, if the Advocate could not appear and the civil suit was dismissed and the learned trial Court restored the same on application of the Advocate, there has been no jurisdictional mistake in the order. There has been no irregularity also which might have occasioned any injustice to either party. The learned Advocate insists that question of presence or absence of the party should have been considered by the trial Court while deciding an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code. However, where a party appears through Advocate, absence of Advocate or his presence is presence and absence of the party. Revision is summarily rejected.