Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS appeal was filed by one Haribux Mandhania against the judgment of the District Judge, Merta dated 18th April, 1959 on 15th May, 1959 and he engaged Shri Laxmi Mail Singhvi as counsel for the purpose. The appeal was signed both by Haribux and his counsel. One of the respondents Girdhar Lal engaged Shri Guman Mal Lodha, advocate, who entered appearance for the said respondent. On 15th July, 1959 an application signed by Haribux was submitted by Shri Gumanmal Lodha before the Registrar in which the said Haribux desired to withdraw his appeal and prayed that the stay order be vacated and costs of the appeal be borne by the parties.
(2.) IT was very strange that this application of Haribux instead of being presented by Haribux himself or by his counsel, came to be presented by the counsel for the opposite parties. When this application came to the notice of Shri Laxmi Mall Singhvi he wanted time to ascertain from his client whether the application was genuine and his client wanted to withdraw the appeal. Time was allowed and the case has been put up today for orders. Shri Laxmi Mall Singhvi, Advocate stated that he has no instructions to withdraw the appeal and his client has not written to him that he wanted to withdraw the appeal. Another application has been filed by Shri Gumanmal Lodha, Advocate that the withdrawal of the appeal by Haribux be accepted as Haribux had so instructed Shri L. M. Singhvi but he was not producing the letter. Shri Laxmi Mall Singhvi stated that he had received one letter delivered to his Junior by Shri Gumanmal Lodha purporting to have been subscribed by Haribux, the appellant, but he was not prepared to accept the instructions which were received through the respondent's counsel and his client had not written to him direct. He is unable to state that his client has agreed to withdraw the appeal. It is curious that the instructions of Haribux should be placed before this Court through the respondent's counsel. Since the counsel for the appellant has no instructions to withdraw the appeal and it cannot be said whether Haribux appellant has made the application for withdrawing the appeal, the appeal shall continue. The attestation on the application of Haribux by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar is very vague and of no consequence. If the appellant wants to withdraw the appeal it is up to him to make an application personally or through his counsel in this Court. The application presented by the counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. This is not proper presentation in the Court. The application of 15th July, 1959 is rejected. Similarly, the counsel for the respondent has no business to pry into the instructions that may be given by the appellant to his counsel. The application o f July 27, 1959 is also rejected. Further proceedings will be taken according to law. The application of Shamshuddin was also considered. He is not a party to the appeal. His application is dismissed. .;