The main legal point established in the judgment is that Senior Advocates are subject to specific restrictions in their practice and conduct as per the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, and their actions must align with these provisions.

( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 28709 of 1993 Brij Lai Patel v. U. P. State Agro Industrial Corporation and another was dismissed in default by an order dated 24-7-2003 which reads as below:"sri Arvind Kumar has fairly submitted that at present he has no instruction to pursue the case, therefore, for lack of instruction he is not able to render assistance. It appears that the cause of action does not survive, therefore, writ petition is dismissed. " (1) A Civil Misc. (Restoration) application no. 138670 of 2003 was preferred on 14-8-2003 by the signature of Sri K. P. Agarwal, senior Advocate as learned counsel for the petitioner supported by an affidavit of Sri nazme Hasan aged about 54 years son of Late shri Mazhar Hussain resident of 275, Rani mandi, Allahabad, as a registered clerk in the office of Sri K. P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate.

( 2 ) IN para 2 of the affidavit it is indicated that name of Arvind Kumar, Advocate was printed as the counsel for the petitioner. According to para 3 of the affidavit when the case was called out Sri K. P. Agarwal, Senior advocate who was to argue the case for the petitioner was not present as he was not aware of that the case was listed at serial no. 27 in the cause list of 24-7-2003. According to para 4 of the affidavit Sri Arvind kumar, Advocate had worked for about 10 years with Sri K. P. Agrawal, Senior Advocate in the past, thereafter he started independent practise. According to para 5 Sri Arvind kumar did not inform Sri K. P. Agrawal, Senior Advocate that the case was listed on 24-3-2003 in Court No. 50 (before Honble R. B. Misra, J. ). In these circumstances it was not noted by Sri K. P. Agrawal, Senior Advocate.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to paras 6 and 7, the writ petition was dismissed in default on 24-7-2003 by this Court in absence of Sri K. P. Agrawal, Senior Advocate which was not on account of his negligence but for bona fide reasons. According to para 8, the petitioners termination is challenged in the Writ Petition and if order of dismissal dated 24-7-2003 is not recalled and Writ Petition is not restored to its original position, the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss. When the restoration application was listed, after hearing this Court was pleased to pass the order dated 18-8-2003 which reads as below :"list this case before me on 21-8-2003. A notice is to be issued to Sri K. P. Agarwal, senior Advocate to indicate under what circumstances he has filed this application, being a Senior Advocate, he is not supposed to file any application and he is not supposed to file Vakalatnama by his signature as the full Court of Allahabad High Court has designated him as Senior Advocate. If satisfactory explanation is not given by him the case shall be referred to Honble the Chief Justice for consideration and for removal of his name from the list of Senior Counsels designaion and the matter shall be sent to Bar council of U. P. Registrar General shall intimate sri K. P. Agrawal about this order with an intimation to this Court. "

( 4 ) IN view of the above order Registrar general on 19-8-2003 informed Sri K. P. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, who in response wrote a letter to the Registrar of the Allahabad high Court on 21-8-2003. The contents of the letter is given as below : 179 to, the Registrar, high Court of Judicature, allahabad. Ref. Writ Petition No. 28709 of 1993. Sir, i acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 19-8-2003 in the above mentioned Writ petition together with the photostat copy of order dated 18-8-2003. 2. The circumstances in which the order"dismissed for default had been passed in the absence of the undersigned when the case has called out have been given in detail in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Restoration Application and need not be repeated here. 3. It was a mistake and a lapse on my part that I signed the application for restoration. It should not have been done and I feel sorry for the same. I will be more ca