JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J.(Oral):-Present petition is filed challenging order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the trial Court thereby rejecting the application moved by the plaintiff – petitioners for recalling the order dated 6.9.2007. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners – plaintiffs filed Suit No.90 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD) Patti. In the suit, ex-parte ad interim injunction was issued in favour of the plaintiffs – petitioners. However, on 6.9.2007, learned counsel for the plaintiffs – petitioners made statement before the trial Court seeking withdrawal of the suit. On the statement of the plaintiff’s counsel Mr. Daljit Kumar, Advocate, the trial Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn. 3. Thereafter, an application under Section 151 CPC was moved for recalling the order dated 6.9.2007 contending therein that the plaintiffs – petitioners had never instructed their counsel Mr. Daljit Kumar, Advocate to withdraw the suit. The suit was withdrawn without instructions from the plaintiffs. It is further contended that interim order was in favour of the plaintiffs and there was no need to withdraw the suit. The trial Court did not find favour with the plaintiffs – petitioners and rejected the application. 4. In the present petition, petitioners have placed copy of the complaint filed by them in the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana against Mr. Daljit Kumar, Advocate for withdrawing the suit without any instructions from the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that if suit is withdrawn without consent and instructions of the party by playing fraud thereon, then party should not be made to suffer for the wrong act or misconduct of the counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the plaintiffs – petitioners are the subsequent purchasers and their vendor has suffered decree, hence suit was not maintainable. She further argued that a valid Vakalatnama was in favour of Mr. Daljit Kumar, Advocate and whatever action Mr. Daljit Kumar, Advocate took on behalf of the plaintiffs – petitioners, the plaintiffs – petitioners cannot challenge that. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that any action taken by the counsel bonafidely under the instructions of the client binds the client. Daljit Kumar, Advocate and whatever action Mr. Daljit Kumar, Advocate took on behalf of the plaintiffs – petitioners, the plaintiffs – petitioners cannot challenge that. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that any action taken by the counsel bonafidely under the instructions of the client binds the client. However, if counsel acts at his own without any instructions from the client that too with malafide intention, then of course, action taken by the counsel can be challenged and the client cannot be made to suffer for the wrong done by the counsel. Moreover, the petitioners – plaintiffs in the present case have also filed complaint against the counsel for misconduct for withdrawing the suit and that complaint, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is still pending in the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the complaint, I find some substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit was withdrawn without the consent of the plaintiffs. Moreover, Court cannot shut its eyes and cannot close its doors to test the rights on merits. 8. In view of the above, order impugned is set aside. Suit is restored to its original number. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.8.2010. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit on merits. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. ------------