Srinivasan, J.

1. This appeal is against an order dismissing the application in I.A. No. 858 of 1986 which was one to restore I.A. No. 637 of 1985 which was dismissed for default on 26.2.1986. I.A. No. 637 of 1986 was in turn to restore I.A. No. 486 of 1985 which was dismissed for default on 29-4-1985. I.A. 486 of 1985 itself was one for setting aside the exparte decree Passed on 22-1-1985 in a suit for specific performance bearing O.S. No. 14 of 1984, Sub-Court, Poonamallee.

2. In support of the application I.A. No. 858 of 1986, an affidavit was filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is very distressing to note that counsel not only filed the affidavit in support of the application but also signed the application as advocate for petitioners. In recent times, an unhealthy practice has grown up among the members of the Bar to come out with affidavits in support of their clients even without the clients themselves filing affidavits setting out the facts. Unfortunately the implication and consequences there of have not been realised by them. Under Order 31, Rule 2, C.P.C. affidavit will be evidence in an application and the court could order cross-examination of the d