O R D E R Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit which was dismissed for default by the trial Court, as his counsel reported ‘no instructions’ on the day on which it stood posted for trial. Therefore he filed a petition to restore the suit to file and the same was dismissed by the trial Court and that order was confirmed in appeal by the learned Senior Civil Judge. Hence this revision. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the revision petitioner is an old man aged about 75 years and was sick on the date to which the case was posted for trial, he could not attend the Court and the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in the trial Court even without informing the revision petitioner has given up his vakalat and so, the Courts below were in error in not restoring the suit. Relying on MALKIAT SINGH AND ANOTHER v. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS(1) he contended that when the counsel for a party reports ‘no instructions’ the Court should have issued a notice to the revision petitioner before dismissing the suit for default and since that procedure is not followed, the order under revision is unsustainable. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is that the revision petitioner was never ready for trial, and as seen from the order under revision, he filed a petition seeking leave to amend the plaint after the suit was posted for trial with a view to drag on the proceedings and so it can be presumed that revision petitioner absented himself wilfully and deliberately. 4. Malkiat Singh’s case (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner arose from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. I am not aware of the Rules of procedure in the High Court and Subordinate Courts in the states of Punjab and Haryana. But suffice it say that in this state Civil Rules of Practice applicable to trial of cases and hearing of appeals in the Courts subordinate to this Court are not exactly similar to the appellate Rules of this Court. But suffice it say that in this state Civil Rules of Practice applicable to trial of cases and hearing of appeals in the Courts subordinate to this Court are not exactly similar to the appellate Rules of this Court. That apart High Court being the highest Court in state may not feel hide bound by the rules of procedure and may order notice to the party if his counsel in this Court reports ‘no instructions’ though there is no such provision either in CPC or the appellate side Rules of this Court. In the trial Court parties are expected to be present in Court for every hearing, and trial Courts are also bound by the Civil Rules of Practice and the financial code and so those Courts cannot utilize the funds allotted to it without sanction of a rule or instructions issued by the High Courts. Courts subordinate to this Court in this state are bound by the Process Fee Rules. So notices to parties in civil proceedings before the trial Courts can be sent only on deposit of process. All parties to proceedings before trial Court may not be residents of the places within its territorial jurisdiction for the Court to depute a process server to serve notice on a party, even without payment of process fees. Service postage also cannot be utilised for sending notice without payment of process. So if a notice has to be sent to the party, on his counsel reporting no instructions in a civil proceeding, some one has to deposit process fees for that purpose. All this apart it should be kept in view that if the Advocate, who is but an agent of the party concerned, reports ‘no instructions,’ in the trial Courts without notice to the client, it is a matter between the client and the Advocate concerned. If due to the act of the advocate, his client has suffered some damage or loss, that is a matter between his client and the advocate concerned but the other side cannot be put to a disadvantage. Since Courts subordinate to the High Court cannot act de hors the provisions of CPC and the Civil Rules of Practice and also cannot by utilizing the funds allotted to it, a trial Court sending notice to the concerned party after his counsel reports ‘no instructions’ is a practice unknown in this state. Since Courts subordinate to the High Court cannot act de hors the provisions of CPC and the Civil Rules of Practice and also cannot by utilizing the funds allotted to it, a trial Court sending notice to the concerned party after his counsel reports ‘no instructions’ is a practice unknown in this state. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that advocates in trial Court usually report want of instructions when clients do not respond to the letters written by them. Moreover, Court being asked to send notice to the party, as and when his counsel reports no instructions, would add to the delay in disposal of cases because unscrupulous litigants can always make a request to their counsel to report no instructions, so that the court would said a notice and this again an adjournment time and again. Therefore the Court below did not commit an error in not sending a notice to the revision petitioner when his counsel reported no instructions. 5. In this case since the revision petitioner is said to be aged 75 years and is said to have been sick on the date of adjournment, since it is well known that the previous conduct of a party need not be taken into consideration while considering petitions under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC or Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, and the reason for default on the day on which the proceeding is dismissed only is relevant, and since the allegation in the affidavit of the revision petitioner that he was sick on the day of posting of the case is not traversed by way of a counter affidavit, and since the counter filed on behalf of the contesting respondent is signed only by the Advocate, but not by the party concerned, and since the advocate who affixed signature to the counter cannot have personal knowledge whether the revision petitioner is really sick or not, it can be taken that the revision petitioner was sick on the date on which the suit was dismissed for default, and so it can be taken that the revision petitioner had sufficient cause for not attending the Court on the day on which the suit was dismissed for default. But since the suit is an old suit I order its restoration on condition of payment of costs by the revision petitioner to the opposite party. 6. But since the suit is an old suit I order its restoration on condition of payment of costs by the revision petitioner to the opposite party. 6. Therefore on condition of the revision petitioner paying Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) as costs to the 1st respondent within 15 days from today, I.A.No.519 of 2003 on the file of the Pincipal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri would stand allowed. In default in payment of costs, the revision petition stands dismissed with costs. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. --X—