Pasupuleti Subba Rao vs Nandavarapu Anjaneyulu

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.—The petitioner herein was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 177 of 2001, which was pending on the file of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of certain amount, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent herein was absent in the trial Court and therefore the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1346 of 2002 for setting aside the order of default and restored the suit to file. In the aforesaid I.A. the counsel appearing for the plaintiff filed his own affidavit and the suit was restored to file. Against the said order, the present revision has been filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The practice of Advocate filing his affidavit in a petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC is totally wrong and illegal. Such practice has to be deprecated. Order 9, Rule 9 or Order 9, Rule 13, CPC contemplates that the application has to be filed by the party concerned only and not by the counsel. The counsel only is permitted to represent his client; he cannot step into the shoes of a client. Admittedly this order passed by the learned Judge is totally wrong and illegal. But any way this practice is prevalent in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, as an exception this time the order is sustained. All concerned should note the law lay down by this Court. Under these circumstances only this Court does not wish to interfere with the said order.

With this direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.