The plaintiff sued the defendant for Shs. 319/15, the balance of an account due for goods sold and delivered and work done. On the date set for hearing, the defendant was personally absent but was represented by his advocate who stated that he had been fully instructed and was prepared to proceed with the case. The trial court has judgment for the plaintiff on the ground that
17, r. 2 and 0.9, r. 6 (1) (a) (ii) (B), Civil Procedure Code, required appearance by the defendant personally and not merely be his advocate.
Held: (1) Under 0.3 r. 1, any appearance required by law to be made by a party may be made by an advocate unless otherwise expressly provided by law or unless otherwise directed by the court.
Under 0.5, r. 5 (b), if a defendant is summoned to appear, he may appear by an advocate even though he is not himself present, so long as the advocate is able to proceed with the case and to answer all material questions. In such case an ex parte judgment is not justified. [Citing Khedu Naek v. Rajib Ray, (1972) A. I R. Patna 291].
The provisions of 0.17, r.2 and 0.9, r.6 (1) (a) (ii), which deal with the procedure to be followed when a defendant fails to appear, must be read together with the provisions of 0.3 and 0.5 set forth above [Citing The Land Officer f. Abdulrasul Jicraj, 1 T. L. R. (R) 410. 420]. Defendant’s advocate was prepared to proceed with the case;
