1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. In this application prayer has been made to restore Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2001, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 4.4.2001.

3. It appears from record that though three advocates were engaged by the revisionist before this Court but on 4.4.2001 none of them had appeared either to press the application or to seek adjournment and thus the case was dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. In paragraph 2 of the restoration application it has been stated that the said revision application was listed before the Court at serial No. 13 under the heading For admission, but the case could not be marked by the office Clerk of the advocate concerned. Hence, nobody appeared before the Court to press the application.

5. Except blaming the Clerk, neither of the three advocates on record has given any explanation as to why none of them could not mark the cause list. The litigant engages the lawyers and not the Clerk. The Clerk is being employed by the concerned advocate and so it is the duty of the concerned advocate to see that the daily cause lists are properly marked. This Court time without number, has found this type of laches and carelessness on part of the advocate(s) on record. Usually the Courts do not dismiss a case on ground of non-appearance of a counsel considering that a litigant should not suffer for laches on part of the counsel, but I am constrained to say that taking advantage of this sympathising attitude, some members of the Bar do not even care to respond to the call for taking adjournment. On the other hand when a case is dismissed on the ground of non-appearance, a lame excuse is given in the restoration application that the list could not be marked. Where in a case number of lawyers are engaged, I fail to understand as to why not a single lawyer should not be present at least to seek adjournment of the case explaining the difficulty.

6. In the case of Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi, etc., (1995) 3 SCC 619 : 1995 (1) East Cr C 618 (SC), their Lordships noting casual and indifferent attitude of some of the lawyers and expecting improvement in quality of service, have observed :

"Of late, we have been coming across several instances which can only be described as unfortunate both for the legal profession and the administration of justice. It becomes, therefore, our duty to bring it to the notice of the members of the profession that it is in their hands to improve the quality of the service they render both to the litigant-public and to the courts, and to brighten their image in the society. Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly causal approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from their absence when the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings many times even illegible and without personal check and verification, the non-payment of court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties, et al. They do not realise the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the court but do positive disservice to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation, it is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice w