JUDGMENT H.N. Kapoor, J. - This is an application for recalling my order dated 30-10-1979 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 710 Of 1976 by which I had dismissed the appeal of the Appellants Ramdhari, Sheo Morrat and Looley alias Mahabir while I had allowed the appeal of Moti Lal. This application has been filed on the ground that the Appellants have been prejudiced as the name of their counsel S/Sri N.K. Roy and A.K. Rathor had not been printed in the list and so they have not been able to argue on behalf of their clients. 2. The appeal was originally filed by Sri R.B. Sahai on behalf of all the four Appellants. He has also argued the appeal on behalf of all the Appellants, as is clear from the order sheet. The appeal was on the list since 4-10-1979. It appears from the office report that Sri N.K. Roy and Sri A.K. Rathor put in their appearance in the office on 12--11-1979 when the appeal was already on the list. They even did not care to note that the appeal was on the list and that they could have filed the appearance slip in the court. According to the office report their names could not appear on the list on account of the circumstances that the appeal was already on the list and the same names were repeated again when it was heard finally. It is stated in the supplementary affidavit that Sri R.B. Sahai had not argued the appeal for the three Appellants, namely, Ramdhari, Sheo Moorat and Looley alias Mahabir and had confined his arguments to Moti Lal. This is not correct. Sri R.B. Sahai was sent for and he stated before the court that he did not have even information about the engagement of Sri N.K. Roy and Sri A.K. Rathor for the three Appellants and he did argue for all the four Appellants. He, however, made a concession that he argued more forcibly for Moti Lal. With regard to others, he argued just casually. It may be that he might not have realised his fee fully so far the Appellants Were concerned. But he had never withdrawn from the case so far as they were concerned. Neither he stated before the court that he was not arguing their case. With regard to others, he argued just casually. It may be that he might not have realised his fee fully so far the Appellants Were concerned. But he had never withdrawn from the case so far as they were concerned. Neither he stated before the court that he was not arguing their case. The difficulty seems to have arisen because the latest rules framed by the Bar Council are not. being followed by the lawyers. I am informed that the rules provide that no lawyer should get himself engaged without the consent of the lawyer already representing a party. If this rule had been followed Sri R.B. Sahai must have known about the engagement of the other counsel and might have brought this fact to the notice of the Court. The ordersheet clearly shows that Sri R.B. Sahai argued for all the four Appellants. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Teekamv. State 1975 ALJ 364 that it is not necessary under the High Court rules that the names of all the counsel should be printed on the list. The case cannot be reopened u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure simply because the names of some counsel engaged on the later date were not printed. 3. In the supplementary affidavit an effort has also been made to show that the case of Moti Lal was worse than the case of the three Appellants and that certain circumstances could not be considered by this Court. That will amount to review of the judgment of this Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Agarwal 1979 SC 87 that the High Court has no power to review its own judgment u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure as the order passed and signed has become final u/s 362 Code of Criminal Procedure. On merit also I do not think that any case for review has been made out. 4. The application is accordingly dismissed.