Judgment :- Today Adv. Sri. T.M. Mohammed Yousuff appears and takes notice for the respondents and requests for time for arguments. On the last posting when it came up for admission, I felt doubt as to whether I shall order notice to the respondents in the review petition direct as the counsel for the respondents who appeared in the appeal was not present in Court. Since it is a general question which may arise frequently and the other advocates also will be interested to address arguments, this Court by order dated 17-6-2004 directed the office to issue notice on this review petition to the Secretary, Kerala High Court Advocates Association also. It was to address arguments on the question whether a notice to the counsel appearing in the case will be sufficient notice after the appeal is finally disposed of and when the review petition is filed or is it necessary to order notice to the parties direct. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the review petition relied on Order 3 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contended that the vakkalath filed in the appeal is sufficient to compel the advocate to take notice after the case is disposed of. 3. Pursuant to the notice to the Secretary, Kerala High Court Advocates Association, Shri. V.R. Venkitakrishnan, appeared for the Association and addressed arguments on this aspect. According to the learned counsel, the vakkalath filed in the appeal is sufficient for the advocate to take notice and notice served on the advocate will be sufficient notice of the review petition, unless the advocate comes and submits that he does not want to appear for the respondents in which case notice will have to be given to the parties direct. Under Order 3 Rule 4 of the Code, the appointment of the advocate shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court or until the client or the pleader dies or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client; and under Explanation, an application for the review of the decree or order in the suit is also treated as a proceedings in the suit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by force of sub-section (1) of S.107 of the Code, an application for review of decree or order in the suit will take in an application for review of decree or order in the appeal also. Rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala states that every vakkalath shall, unless otherwise permitted by the Court, be in Form No.1 and may authorize the advocate to appear in subsequent proceedings such as application for leave to appeal to the supreme Court, appeals to a Division Bench etc. Form No.1 also shows that the vakkalath must contain an appointment of an advocate to appear for the client in the appeal/suit/petition and to conduct and prosecute or defend the same and all proceedings that may be taken in respect of any application connected with the same or any decree or order passed therein, including all applications for return of documents, application for review, in appeal under S.5 of the High Court Act and in applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Form also contains necessary indication that it authorizes the counsel to appear in the review petition without any fresh vakkalath. The conclusion that can be reached from the above rules is that it is sufficient if notice is served on the counsel who appeared in the appeal in the review petition also and unless the counsel submits to the court that he has no instruction, the notice so served will be sufficient notice in the review petition. Post this review petition for hearing on 27-7-2004.