9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner company had earlier entrusted this case to learned Senior Advocate, Sri L. N. Rastogi and Mr. S. K. Sharan, Mr. Ajay Rastogi, Mr. Manish Rastogi and Ms. Kalpana Rohtagi who were in the office of the Senior Advocate. It is stated that Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned Advocate who was on record happens to be the son of Mr. L. N. Rastogi, Senior Advocate. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 16.04.2018 when the matter came up for consideration before this Court, it appears that the same was sought to be withdrawn but the fact is that the petitioners company had no knowledge about listing of the appeal on 16.04.2018 so the question of giving instructions to the Advocates on record or to any other Advocate does not arise. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he views expressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rotary Club, Begusarai etc. v. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2001 Patna 115. The relevant part of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench reads as under:- ".........Recourse to review by change of lawyers is normally deprecated by Courts. The practice becomes all the more reprehensible when review is sought on grounds pertaining to the previous conduct of the case or other grounds of fact normally within the knowledge of the previous lawyer(s). To my mind a lawyer must be very reluctant to take up a brief of review unless he had appeared in the case, the order passed in which is the subject of review. In case for some reasons a change of lawyer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he had communicated his inability to conduct the appeals vide letter dated 18.02.2017. Nothing is stated as to how the letter dated 18.02.2017 was dispatched or sent to the petitioners company. It does not talk of any attempt to inquire as true and correct position from the learned Advocates whose name appear in the order dated 16.04.2018. (iv) The new set of lawyers never inquired the true and correct facts from the learned Advocates whose name appear in the order of this Court. They have not testified that they have got the facts stated in review petition verified by the previous lawyer. In the aforementioned facts, we are afraid any leniency in accepting the plea of the petitioner company would not only amount to diluting the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
