- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. By an order dated 17-4-1998 the writ petition was dismissed on merit. The said order has been sought to be recalled by the present application for recalling the said order dated 17-4-1998.
(2.) MR. VK. Burman, learned Counsel for the petitioner has based his claim on the ground that though the name of Shri R. K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner was printed in the list of 17-4-1998 but the name of MR. VK. Burman was not shown in the list and therefore, he could not appear when the matter was called on. MR. Shukla also did not appear. Therefore, in such circumstances, the revisional application could have been dis missed in default but it could not have been decided on merit. In support of his such proposition he relies on the provisions contained in Order XLI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as the Code ). Mr. Burman had also contended that this writ petition was filed by the petitioner through Mr. R. C. Shukla on 15-10-1992. He had returned the brief before 14-12-1992. On account thereof Mr. VK. Burman was engaged which fact appears to have been recorded in the order sheet on 14-12-1992 that Shri VK. Bur man had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, when the matter ap peared on 17-4-1998 Shri Shukla did not take any interest nor had informed Mr. Burman about the listing of the case. Since 2-3-1998, on account of a fracture in the hip bone of left leg, all cases of Mr. Burman 'were adjourned by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice between 2-3-1998 till 31-5-1998. Therefore, the matter could not be taken up and no prayer for accommoda tion could be made. On all these grounds, Mr. Burman prays for setting aside the order dated 17-4-1998.
(3.) MR. Vishnu Gupta, learned Coun sel for respondents on the other hand op poses the contention of MR. Burman on the ground that the order Order XLI, Rule 17 of the Code has no manner of applica tion in a writ proceedings by reason of Section 141 of the Code. He next contends that Shri R. C. Shukla has not been dis charged from the case. There is nothing on record to show that Shri R. C. Shukla has ever been discharged. In case the name of one set of Counsel is printed, there is no justification for adjournment of a case on 'the ground of non-printing the name of other Counsel or on account of adjourn ment due to reason personal to him. I have heard both the learned Counsel on this point at length.;