C L MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Shesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) IN the instant case three Counsels, namely, Shri V. K. Barman, Shri D. K. Dewan and Shri Shesh Kumar appear for the petitioner. On 17th December, 1997, when the case was taken up upon revision of the cause list none of the aforesaid three Counsels for the petitioner appeared to press this petition. Shri Janardan Sahai and Shri A. K. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, were present. IN the result, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. 3, The order dated 17th December, 1997 dismissing the case for want of prosecution is sought to be recalled by means of this application No. 82862 of 1997. IN the affidavit filed in support of the said restoration application it is asserted that the petitioner s Counsel could not attend the case on 17th December, 1997 as he was busy in unlisted case in another court. It is not disclosed in the affidavit which of the three Counsels was busy in another court. There is also no explana tion in the affidavit as to why other two Counsels did not prosecute the case for the petitioner. On record all the three Counsels continue to be Counsel repre senting the petitioner. There is no material to suggest that the engagement of any of the three Counsels stood terminated at any point of time. IN the opinion of the Court, all the three Coun sels were jointly and severally responsible for conducting the case on behalf of the petitioner. Nothing is shown to absolve them of the said responsibility. 4. All told, the Court is not satisfied that sufficient ground exists to recall the order dated 17th December, 1997. 5. IN the result, the application for recalling the order dated 17th December, 1997 is rejected. Application rejected. .