Even though a duty is cast upon the Advocate to represent his client, the contention of the revision petitioner that he was waiting for a call from his Advocate and since there was no response, he did not contact his Advocate and in the above said circumstances, the ex-parte decree came to be passed, cannot be accepted.

F.Ramesh vs. M/s.Ramalingam Investments, Salem represented by its Managing Partner K.Sridharan 

 2013(5) MLJ 565, 

where, this Court held that the applicant seeking condonation of delay ought to have diligently prosecuted the case by contacting his counsel and even though a duty is cast upon the Advocate to represent his client, the contention of the revision petitioner that he was waiting for a call from his Advocate and since there was no response, he did not contact his Advocate and in the above said circumstances, the ex-parte decree came to be passed, cannot be accepted.