VIJAY DHANJI CHAUDHARY Vs. SUHAS JAYANT NATAWADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 2 of 2009 is an application for restoration of the special leave petition dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.7.2009. This application discloses a disturbing trend in regard to the functioning of Advocates-on-record.

(2.) The special leave petition is stated to have been drafted by Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate and filed by Mr. D.B. Vohra, Advocate-on-Record. The application for restoration is filed by Mr. D.B. Vohra, alleging that the case was listed for hearing on 20.7.2009; that he (Mr. D. B. Vohra, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner) was aware of the listing of the petition; that he informed the clerk of Mr. Vikas Mahajan, about the listing; that Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate by mistake did not enter this case in his diary and therefore, Mr. Vikas Mahajan did not appear. There is no affidavit of Mr. Vikas Mahajan in support of the application.

(3.) What is puzzling is the role or rather the absence of the role of the Advocate-on-Record in this matter. Para 4 of the application shows that the Advocate-on-Record had nothing to do with the special leave petition except to lend his name for filing the petition. He did not take instructions from the client/petitioner. He did not prepare the special leave petition. He did not instruct any counsel. He was not required to or expected to attend the hearing of the case.