1. This is an application filed by one peer Noor-ud-Din for setting/aside the orders dated/22. 8. 1986 and 25. 9. 1987 recorded in the main writ petition. By the order dated 22. 8. 1987 recorded in writ petition No : 1228/86, the court had observed that Mr. N. A. Ronga, the then Govt. Advocate, after passing the exparte order against the respondents, had filed a CMP No: 1261/1987 for setting aside the same and for allowing them to file the counter for the respondents. Mr. AK Raina had made a submission that he will have no objection if the respondents are allowed to file the counter and participate in the proceedings provided the same is filed within a weeks time. Mr. Ronga on this condition was allowed to file the counter within a weeks time and thereafter Mr. AK Raina had to file the rejoinder within three days.

2. The order dated 22. 8.1987 was not complied with, therefore on 25. 9. 1987, the court observed that Mr. Ronga the learned Govt. Advocate did not file the counter within one week as directed on 22. 8. 1987. The counter was filed in the court on 25. 9. 1987. Mr. Raina said that he had no objection in condoning the time for filing the counter. Counter was accordingly placed on record. Mr. Raina was given one weeks time to file the rejoinder. Rejoinder was not filed. There after on 3. 3, 1989 the present CMP came to be filed in which it was contended that Mr. Raina was never appointed as an advocate of the petitioner, therefore, he could not appear on 22. 8, 1987 or 25. 9. 1987. It is stated that he could not give any concession to the other side for filing counter or for conceding the CMP No. 1261/1987. Mr. AK Raina is said to be unknown advocate and Mr. RA. Fida was counsel for the petitioner. On these premises it is stated that Mr. AK Raina has fraudulently conducted the case and has deceived the petitioner. The two orders are prayed to be cancelled.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents as also Mr. AK Raina.

4. Petitioner did not appear when the case was taken up for consideration in the pre-lunch session. In the post lunch session he wanted to get his lawyer but thereafter he absented himself. He was not present also on 28. 4. 1989 and 17. 5. 1989 when this CMP was taken up for consideration. Therefore, I have considered the matter which is to be decided on the basis of the record.

5. The CMP of the petitioner is supported by an affidavit. M/S A. K. Raina and A. M. Dar Advocates have filed affidavits in reply to the CMP.

6. Mr. A. M. Dar advocate has stated in his affidavit that the petitioner had approached him for assistance in the writ petition and to plead his case. He was not appearing before the High court those days. Therefore, the petitioner approached Sh. A. K, Raina and requested him to lend assistance to him in the case. He has stated that in his presence the petitioner had briefed Sh. A. K. Raina copy of the writ petition was handed over to Mr. A. K. Raina by him. He is said to have given a signed power of attorney to Shri A. K. Raina, which Sh. A. K. Raina had filed before the Registry. When the writ petition was listed for admission Sh. A. K. Raina had appeared in the court along with Mr. R. A. Fida and argued the case for admission. Notice for admission was issued. Petitioner is closely known to the deponent, Mr. Ali Mohd. Dar. He states that the allegations made by petitioner against Mr. A, K, Raina are false and frivolous. It is stated by him that the petitioner had paid Rs 300/- to Mr. A. K, Raina in his presence,

7. Mr. A. K, Raina has also filed his personal affidavit. He has denied the allegation leveled against him and stated that the petitioner was brought to him by Sh. A. M. Dar Advocate who requested him to render assistance to the petitioner along with Mr. R. A. Fida advocate. He was briefed by the petitioner in presence of Ali Mohd. He is said to have obtained Vakalatname from the petitioner which was filed by him and was paid Rs. 300/- as his fee for pleading the case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document