PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The record of CS(OS) 2457/2009 has left us sad and filled with pain. One could not have imagined that the learned counsel who appeared for the defendants could have fallen so low in the understanding of the procedures of the law, more so when defendant No.2 himself is a lawyer of standing and was defending not only himself but also his daughter-in-law, impleaded as defendant No.3. We would only say that when representation by a counsel falls to such abyss of depth, that the trial ceases to be adversarial, the Court would have to come to the rescue of the client, but the task is difficult for the reason : Why should the opposite party suffer for the delay. Who recompenses? With regret we note that today, in the very preceding matter, we had to deal with a supine negligence by a learned member of the Bar which caused grave injury to the client and to un do the harm caused to the client we had to recompense the opposite party with cost which was borne from the pocket of the unfortunate client. The only difference in the instant case is that the negligent lawyer was a party himself and so was his daughter-in-law. As regards the two, they were just not