An advocate cannot withdraw an application after the litigant’s death.

The original plaintiff had filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2018, seeking condonation of delay in a restoration proceeding relating to Regular Civil Suit No. 247 of 2015.

After the plaintiff’s death—identified as 14 June 2022 in the submissions, though paragraph 11 records 14 July 2022—his former advocate filed a withdrawal purshis on 12 November 2022, and the trial court disposed of the application in the Lok Adalat.

The plaintiff’s legal heirs challenged that order, contending that the advocate lacked authority to withdraw the application after the plaintiff’s death.

The respondents opposed the petition, raising the heirs’ delay in challenging the order and the alleged abatement of the suit.

1. Whether the trial court’s order allowing withdrawal of the delay application was liable to be set aside because the plaintiff had died before his advocate filed the withdrawal purshis.

2. Whether the respondents’ objections concerning the heirs’ delay and the alleged abatement of the suit should be determined in the writ petition or left for consideration by the trial court.

The Court applied the principle that, upon a litigant’s death, the litigant’s advocate no longer has authority to make submissions or give concessions on that litigant’s behalf.

It further directed that questions concerning bringing legal representatives on record, delay, and setting aside abatement be considered by the trial court in accordance with law, after hearing the parties.

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.

The plaintiff’s death before the withdrawal purshis was undisputed. Because the advocate filed the purshis after the plaintiff had died, the advocate lacked authority to withdraw the application on the deceased plaintiff’s behalf; the resulting trial court order therefore required interference.

The Court did not decide the respondents’ objections concerning delay or abatement, holding that those matters should be raised and determined by the trial court in any proceedings to bring the heirs on record or to address delay and abatement.

Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2018 was restored to its original file for determination in accordance with law after an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

The trial court was to consider any applications concerning the heirs’ impleadment, delay, and setting aside abatement, with the respondents’ objections left open.

Rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs.