Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ayank Mishra and Sri A.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3.

2. This is the defendant’s second appeal. Without going into the merits of the impugned order, at the time of admission Sri Varun Dev Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the person who has filed the affidavit in support of the stay application in this second appeal is one Sri Rohit Kumar Tyagi, who has claimed in para 1 of the affidavit that he is the family friend of the appellant and states that he is doing pairvi of the case on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that Sri Rohit Kumar Tyagi was in fact the counsel for the appellant before the lower appellate Court and therefore, as a counsel he cannot be the pairokar of his client and file an affidavit to the stay application in support of the present second appeal and this act of his amounts to professional misconduct.

3. On the preliminary objection so raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Court vide its order dated 10.5.2017, directed Sri Rohi