The petitioners filed the Writ Petition assailing the proceedings of second respondent dt.20.12.2003 whereby and whereunder permanent registration granted to first petitioner small scale industry was cancelled and first petitioner was de-registered on an allegation that the petitioners cheated the Government institution by furnishing fake copy of the rate contract agreement. The Writ Petition was listed in Motion List for admission on 2.1.2006. On that day, this Court passed the following order.

The matter was listed as item No.1 in the “Motion List” on 30.12.2005. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioners was absent and there was no representation. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “For Dismissal”. Today also, though the matter is appearing in the list under the caption “For Dismissal”, learned Counsel for the petitioners is absent and there is no representation.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for default/non prosecution. No costs.

2. The present application is filed under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside the order dt.2.1.2006 dismissing the writ petition for default. The affidavit in support of the miscellaneous application is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pawan Kumar Agarwal. No affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioners showing sufficient cause as to why the petitioners or their Counsel was absent on that day when the case was called. Therefore, this application cannot be entertained. Every petition and every miscellaneous application filed in support of writ petition or miscellaneous application has to be accompanied by an affidavit filed by petitioner or on behalf of petitioner. An Advocate appearing for a party, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not entitled to file affidavit on behalf of the party. The application is therefore liable to be dismissed. The reasons for the same are as follows.

3. The CPC especially Order VI in First Schedule lays down the rules to be followed in the matter of pleadings. As per Rule 15 of Order VI, every pleading shall have to be verified by the “party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case” and the verification shall have to be signed by the person making it. Order III deals with Recognised Agents and Pleaders. Order III Rule 1 enables a recognized agent to make appearance, application or act in or to any Court. Rule 2 explains recognized agents as “agents of parties by whom applications and acts may be made or done”. These are those persons holding power of attorney authorizing them to make application and act on behalf of such parties. Section 2(15) of CPC defines Pleader as to mean any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court and such Pleader includes Advocate, Vakil and Attorney of High Court. Rule 4 of Order III lays down that unless he has been appointed for the Pleader no Pleader shall act for any person in any Court. Advocate can only act in accordance with the power of attorney or vakalatnama.

4. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of their powers under Article 227 of the Constitution and 126 of CPC made the Rules and Circular Orders compendiously called “Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders.” Chapter III deals with Advocates and recognized agents. Rule 30 says that every vakalat shall be in Form No.12 and shall be executed or its execution attested by a judicial functionary, Gazetted Officer, an M.L.A., an M.P., an Advocate etc. Rule 32 enables a party to a suit or proceedings to appear by any agent other than Advocate and as per Rule 33 such agent can sign or verify petitions and applications and has to produce written authority in that behalf. Rule 33 of Civil Rules of Practice, is relevant and reads as under.

33. Signing or verification by Agent:- If any proceed