HUKAM SINGH Vs. BELA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 4 has been served. None appears on his behalf.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 have not been served. However, since the interest of these respondents is common with other respondents who have already been served, this civil revision can be disposed of in their absence.

(3.) This civil revision has been directed against the order dated 3.3.1994 and 4.4.1994 passed by the District Judge, Ropar. Order dated 3.3.1994 was passed on the statement made by Shri Avinash Sharma, Advocate, Junior of Shri K.P.S. Rana, Advocate, Ropar, that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. Order dated 4.4.1994 has been passed on the application whereby prayer to review order dated 3.3.1994 has been declined. In the application for recalling order dated 3.3.1994, it was stated that Mr. Avinash Sharma, Advocate, was never instructed to withdraw the appeal. In fact, he had been instructed to make a statement that stay application be got dismissed as withdrawn but inadvertently he made a statement that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. The mistake came to the notice of the senior counsel and thereafter an application was immediately filed for recalling the order. Shri K.P.S. Rana, Advocate has filed affidavit in this Court in which he has stated that he never instructed Mr. Avinash Sharma, Advocate to withdraw the main appeal. As a matter of fact, he was instructed not to press the stay application but he made a statement by mistake for withdrawal of the main appeal.