SI. JAFRI, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been filed by Mahabir appellant praying that the judgment and order dated 14th November, 1984 dismissing his appeal No. 1014 of 1977 by this Court may be set aside and he may be given another hearing. ( 2 ) THIS appeal was filed by Mahabir applicant on 20-5-1977 through Sri P. N. Misra, Advocate who argued it on 14-11-1984 at length. After hearing him and State counsel, the appeal by Mahavir was dismissed. It is now alleged by the applicant in the instant application that Sri S. D. N. Singh, Advocate, was also engaged by him on 13-11-1984 who filed his memo of appearance on November 13, 1984 in the Criminal Section of the High Court, the counter-foil of which was returned to the clear of Sri S. D. N. Singh on November 14, 1984 with an endorsement on the said counterfoil that the aforesaid appeal was pending. However, since the name of Sri S. D. N. Singh did not appear in the cause list on 14-11-1984 he could not appeal in Court on that day when his appeal was argued by Sri P. N. Misra. Before considering the above contention of the appellant, it would be necessary to notice the following facts. ( 3 ) AFTER the filing of this appeal in this Court on 20-5-1917 by Sri P. N. Misra, it was for the first time listed for hearing on 3-8-1984 before a Bench consisting of Hon. R. B. Lal and Hon. G. B. Singh, JJ. without the name of Sri P. N. Misra. Therefore on that date it was directed to be listed correctly with the name of Sri P. N. Misra as counsel for the appellant. The appeal was then listed correctly for final hearing on 7-8-1984 when it was directed to be listed after 10-8-1984 as the cases of Sri P. N. Misra were adjourned till then. It was, thereafter, listed on 13-8-1984. On that date Sri Satya Prakash, Advocate filed his memo of appearance and moved an application on behalf of the appellant seeking one month adjournment preparing the case. This request of Sri Satya Prakash, Advocate was rejected but it was directed that the appeal be listed for final hearing after three days. It was, thereafter, listed on 13-8-1984. On that date Sri Satya Prakash, Advocate filed his memo of appearance and moved an application on behalf of the appellant seeking one month adjournment preparing the case. This request of Sri Satya Prakash, Advocate was rejected but it was directed that the appeal be listed for final hearing after three days. Thereafter, the appeal came up for hearing before the Court on 27-8-1984, 29-8- 1984, 31-8-1984, 4-9-1984, 6-9-1984, 11-9-1984 but on each date its hearing was passed over for one reason or the other. On 11-9-1984 the case was directed to be listed after 14-9-1984 as the cases of Sri P. N. Misra were again adjourned till then. At this stage appellant had engaged Sri N. A. Kazmi, advocate also. His cases were also adjourned on account of his protracted illness by Honble the Acting Chief Justice. The appeal was, therefore, listed for final hearing on 19-9-1984. On that date the hearing on the appeal was again adjourned as the cases of Sri N. A. Kazmi were adjourned upto 26-9-1984. The appeal was then listed for hearing on 12-11-1984 but it was again adjourned on that date, it was then listed for hearing on 14-11-1984 on which date it was argued by Sri P. N. Misra, Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant. This Court after hearing him and the learned counsel for the State dismissed the appeal of Mahabir. It may be noted that on that date only Sri P. N. Misra, Advocate had appeared to argue the appeal. The other two advocates viz. Sri Satya Prakash and Sri N. A. Kazmi did not even appear in the Court on 14-11-1984 for assisting Sri P. N. Misra. Their engagements earlier had only served the purpose of getting the appeal adjourned on various dates already mentioned above. Now when the appeal was listed for hearing again on 12-11-1984 it appears another engagement of Sri S. D. N. Singh was made by the appellant who knew that his case would be listed for hearing on 14-11-1984 as it was passed over on 12-11-1984 for that day at his instance. Sri S. D. N. Singh instead of appearing in this case filed his memo of appearance in the office of this Court on that date (and not on 13-11-1984 as wrongly sworn by the appellant in his affidavit ). Sri S. D. N. Singh instead of appearing in this case filed his memo of appearance in the office of this Court on that date (and not on 13-11-1984 as wrongly sworn by the appellant in his affidavit ). Therefore, the name of Sri S. D. N. Singh could not have been printed in the cause list of the Court on 14-11-1984. ( 4 ) NOW, the grievance of Mahabir appellant is that though his Advocates Sri S. D. N. Singh was engaged by him as his counsel in the appeal, his name was not printed in the cause list of 24-11- 1984 even though his memo was given in the office on 13-11-1984. Mahabir has verified the contents of para 3 of his application that Sri S. D. N. Singh had filed his memo of appearance on his behalf on November 13, 1984 from personal knowledge. Therefore, he himself was present at Allahabad at least on 13-11-1984. Then, as hereinafter mentioned, some statements of the concerned clerks of the office of this Court show that the memo of Sri S. D. N. Singh was not filed in this office on 13-11-1984 but it was actually filed on 14-11-1984. It may also be pointed out that as stated by Sri S. D. N. Singh himself he got his enrolment as an Advocate only about two years back. Sri P. N. Misra, Advocate who had argued the appeal and who was also retained throughout by the applicant Mahabir in his appeal is an advocate of more than 25 years standing and is a leading Advocate on the criminal side in the High Court. ( 5 ) SRI S. D. N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant Mahabir, has frankly admitted that he was engaged by the applicant Mahabir only for the purpose of assisting Sri P. N. Misra and has submitted that on account of his non-appearance before the Court during the hearing of the appeal, Sri P. N. Misra was deprived of his valuable assistance and in this way the appellant was very seriously prejudiced in his defence. In that case, it was his bounded duty to have contacted Sri P. N. Misra on 13-11-1984 when he is alleged to have filed the memo of appearance in the office of the Court and should have prepared himself by examining the record of the case for assisting Sri P. N. Misra if his engagement was to assist him. Then, as already pointed above, the assertion of Mahabir in his affidavit that the memo of appearance of Sri S. D. N. Singh was filed on 13-11-1984 has been found to be false. Sri R. P. Singh, Receipt Clerk in the Criminal Section of the High Court examined by us has stated on oath after examining the progress register of 1984 that the memo of appearance of Sri S. D. N. Singh, Advocate in Criminal Appeal No. 1014 of 1977 was received by him on 14-11-1984 and not on 13-11-1984. After receiving the memo he had returned the counter-foil to the person presenting the memo Ex. C. 1. He has further stated that on that date he has accepted the memo in the office instead of directing the person presenting it to file it in the Court as the case was listed for hearing on that day because he gives such a direction when this fact is brought to his knowledge by the person presenting the Vakalatnama in the office otherwise he accepts it in a routine manner and deals with the same according to the office routine. Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava C. W. 1, another Assistant of Criminal Department had brought the Receipt Register of the Office and has corroborated the statement of Sri. R. P. Singh C. W. 2. We are thus satisfied that the memo of Sri S. D. N. Singh, Advocate was handed over to Sri R. P. Singh C. W. 2 on 14-11-1984 i. e. on the date on which the appeal was argued by Sri P. N. Misra in the Court and allegation to the contrary has been made by Mahabir appellant deliberately and the memo was also filed by him designedly. Be whatever it may, the name of Sri S. D. N. Singh, advocate could not be printed in the cause list of 14-11-1984. Be whatever it may, the name of Sri S. D. N. Singh, advocate could not be printed in the cause list of 14-11-1984. Then, as already pointed out above, if Sri S. D. N. Singh was engaged by Mahabir appellant on 13-11-1984 (who was himself present at Allahabad on 13- 11-1984) for assisting the Senior Advocate Sri P. N. Misra, it was his duty to have contacted the Senior Advocate rather than handed over his memo of appearance to his client to be filed in the office on 14-11-1984 instead of filing it in the Court itself. Further, it was also the duty of Mahabir to have informed Sri S. D. N. Singh that 14-11-1984 was the date fixed for arguments so that he could have given his assistance to Sri P. N. Misra instead of remaining contented by getting a memo of appearance filed on behalf of Sri S. D. N. Singh in the office on 14-11-1984 so that Sri S. D. N. Singh could crave a rehearing of the appeal, if need be, subsequently as is being done by the instant application. In such circumstances, we are not at all impressed by the submission of Sri S. D. N. Singh that his engagement was really to assist Sri P. N. Misra during his arguments in the appeal. Rather it is a case where not only Sri P. N. Misra, a very senior lawyer of this Court on the criminal side, had full authority to argue the appeal but even now it is not said that Mahabir had lost his confidence in Sri P. N. Misra. In such circumstances no inference of prejudice can be drawn merely because a memo of appearance was filed in the office on 14-11-1984 on behalf of Sri S. D. N. Singh by Mahabir knowing full well that was the date of hearing of this appeal. He had filed similar memo of two more advocates, viz. Sri Satya Prakash and Sri N. A. Kazmi on earlier occasions also when these advocates had not argued the appeal. ( 6 ) SRI S. D. N. Singh cited some cases in support of the application. They are Swami Prasad v. State,1 (Summary Cases) Surendra Pal Singh v. State2 and Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affarirs v. Mohan Singh3 None of these cases is of any assistance to him. ( 6 ) SRI S. D. N. Singh cited some cases in support of the application. They are Swami Prasad v. State,1 (Summary Cases) Surendra Pal Singh v. State2 and Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affarirs v. Mohan Singh3 None of these cases is of any assistance to him. In Swami Prasads case the order passed by the High Court was an ex-parte one. The counsel could not appear on the date fixed for unavoidable reasons. In the other case of Surendra Pal Singh, the High Court had passed the order without hearing the applicants counsel who could not appear before the court for want of notice of that date as his name was not printed in the Cause List. In the third case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the rejection of an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing certain proceedings is no bar for filing a subsequent application under section 482 for quashing the same proceedings and that consideration of the second application on merits by the Court does not amount to review or a revision of the order passed on the earlier application filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) THE learned Government Advocate for the State while opposing this application also cited State of Orissa v. RC. Agarwala4 and Naresh and, others v. State of UP5 in support of his contention that the application of the applicant for re-hearing of the appeal is misconceived and not maintainable because once the judgment is delivered in a case after giving opportunity to the appellants counsel, no review application lies by way of re hearing of the appeal. We agree with the contention of the learned State Counsel. As discussed above, on merits also no rehearing of the appeal is caused for merely because Sri P. N. Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant, could not avail the assistance of Sri S. D. N. Singh Advocate in the preparation of the appeal particularly when the engagement of Sri S. D. N. Singh in the appeal was not in existence till the date when the appeal was actually argued by Sri Misra in the Court. And, further it is also doubtful that Mahabir had filed the memo of his appearance in the office with any such intention. And, further it is also doubtful that Mahabir had filed the memo of his appearance in the office with any such intention. He could get the consent of Sri S. D. N. Singh to agree to his engagement and filed his parcha in this office, instead of the Court and without telling the Senior Council about this engagement. So his application deserves to be rejected on merits also. ( 8 ) IN the result, the application of. the applicant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 14- 11-1984 passed by this Court in the appeal is misconceived and not maintainable. The application is, therefore, rejected. Application not maintainable and rejected. .