AR. Lakshmanan, CJ.-This appeal has been filed against the order, passed in SB Civil Restoration Application No. 219/2001, in SB Civil Writ Petition NO. 1366/94 (Defect). By the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge, by his order dated 8.2001, dismissed the restoration application. The writ petition was dismissed in default, on 23.95. The order of the Court, dated 23.95, reads as under:-

“On account of the strike, the petitioner’s Counsel is not present. No representative on behalf of the

petitioner is even present.” (2). In the restoration application, the ground given for the absence of the Counsel on 22.3-95, when the mailer was called for hearing, is as under:-

“That on 23.95, the Bar Council of Rajasthan gave a call for the strike throughout Rajasthan and in connection with that call, Shri R.S. Mehta and his colleagues remained on strike and could not attend the matter and the same was dismissed for default.”

(3). It is thus seen that the petitioner’s Counsel remained absent from the Court, when the matter was called for hearing, for the reason that the Bar Council of Rajasthan had given a call for strike, throughout Rajasthan. The learned Judge dismissed the restoralion appliralion, holding that it is hardly a ground, much less a sufficient ground, to remain absent from the Court. The learned Judge has adduced further reasons as well, for the dismissal of the application. (4). Shri R.S. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the appellant, states that similar writ petitions were also filed against the assessment orders for the years 199 1-92 and 1992-93, which are pending before this Court and that certain restoration applications, filed within lime, were also restored by the same learned Judge. (5). It is seen from Ground (c) that other mailers, which were listed on 23.95, before other Bench as well as before the same Bench, were also dismissed in default, but subsequently, they were restored on the same very reason and, therefore, in not restoring the present application, would be discrimination with the appellant. (6). The reason for not attending to Court-work, by the lawyer concerned, was on account of “strike”. The petitioner’s Counsel was not present in the Court. No representation on behalf of the petitioner, was made and no representative on behalf of the petitioner, was even present. The Supreme Court, in a very recent Judgment , in the case of Ramon -Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor & Ors. 2001 (1) SCC 118 = RLW 2001

(3) SC338, held that strike/boycott by lawyers not just affects the members of the legal profession, but obstructs the process of Court, which is intended to secure justice and that strike by professionals, including Advocates, cannot be equated with strikes by industrial workers, It is also held that the relationship between a lawyer and his client, is one of trust and mutual confidence and that the services, rendered by the Advocates are regulated by a contract between lawyer and client, under the provisions of Advocates’ Act and the rules for procedure, framed by the Supreme Court and High Courts. Hon’ble K.T. Thomas, J.. speaking for the Bench, has observed in paragraph 5 of the Judgment , as follows:-

“When the advocate engaged by a party is on strike there is no obligation on the part of the Court either

to waiter to adjourn the case on that account. Time and again the Supreme Court has said that an

advocate has no right to stall the Court proceedings on the ground that advocates have decided to strike

or to boycott the Courts or even boycott any particular Court.” (7). In paragraph 16, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-

“In all cases where the Court is satisfied that the ex parte order (passed due to the absence of the

advocate pursuant to any strike call) could be set aside on terms, the Court can as well permit the party to

realise the costs from the advocate concerned without driving such party to initiate another legal action

against the advocate.” (8