- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Shri A. S. Diwekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vivek Ratan, learned Counsel representing the respon dents No. 2,3,4 and 5.
(2.) THIS writ petition was filed by the petitioner through Shri A. S. Diwekar and Shri B. R. Maurya, as is evident from the Vakalatnama accompanying the writ peti tion, in September, 1981 and was ad mitted on 4th November, 1981. Eventual ly, it was listed for hearing on 5th Septem ber, 1994 and was dismissed for want of prosecution. The order dated 5th Septem ber, 1994 dismissing the petition for want of prosecution is sought to be recalled by means of the restoration application No. 17800 of 1994, which is accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Shri R. K. Patel, claim ing himself to be the clerk of Shri Ajay Yadav, Advocate. In the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application it is stated that two Counsels, namely, Shri I. N. Singh and Shri Ajay Yadav had appeared for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Yadav had sent illness slip praving for adjournment of the hearing of the case on 5th September, 1994. Further statement in the affidavit is that the case was taken up on. revision of the cause list and was dismissed for want of prosecution; and that as soon as Shri I. N. Singh came to know of the dismissal he rushed to the court to make request for recalling the order dated 5th September, 1994, but by that time court had retired. Today, Shri A. S. Diwekar, learned Counsel of the petitioner, through whom the writ petition was filed, appears. The order-sheet indicates that on previous oc casion also he had appeared for the petitioner. The Court as well as Shri Diwekar scanned the entire record to find out whether Shri I. N. Singh and Shri Ajay Yadav appeared as Counsels for the petitioner, but in vain. Neither is there on record any Vakalatnama of Shri I. N. Singh and Shri Ajay Yadav nor does the order-sheet indicate that they appeared for the petitioner at any point of time. Even the restoration application is not signed by either Shri I. N. Singh or Shri Ajay Yadav. Indeed, it is signed by an other advocate, namely, Shri Anil Kumar Yadav. The af fidavit accompanying the restoration ap plication focuses its attention in explain ing the absence of two Counsel Shri I. N. Singh and Shri Ajay Yadav who appear to be strangers to the case as noticed above. There is no explanation why the two Counsels, namely, Shri A. S. Diwekar and Shri B. R. Maurya, through whom the writ petition was filed and whose Vakalatnama is on record, did not appear.
(3.) THE respondents No. 2 to 4 are contesting the prayer of the petitioner for restoration. A counter- affidavit on their behalf has been filed in the matter of res toration. In the counter-affidavit it is pointed out that, admittedly, there was no illness slip of Shri I. N. Singh. It is further pointed out that in the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application there is no explanation for non-ap pearance of Shri I. N. Singh, Advocate when the case was taken up on revision of the cause list on 5th September, 1994. THE counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 remains uncontroverted inasmuch as no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by or on behalf of the petitioner. The cause for default in ap-pearence and prosecution of the case by each of the Counsels appearing in the case has to be explained sufficiently and to the satisfaction of the Court as the Counsels appearing in a case are jointly and several ly responsible for the due prosecution of the case.;