JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, M. - This is an application for review moved against the order of this court dated 27.11.90 mainly on the ground that Sri B.B. Paul, Advocate one of the counsels for the revisionist was not heard. 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. It appears that Sri B.B. Paul and Sri Prakash Chandra, Advocates were representing the revisionists and only Sri Prakash Chandra had been heard before the judgment was delivered. It was stressed by Sri B.B. Paul that a separate notice should have been issued to him as well by the court because his Vakalatnama had been filed subsequent to that of Sri Prakash Chandra. 4. In my opinion this argument has no force. It is not necessary that all the counsels representing a particular party have to be heard as only one of the counsels can make submission on behalf of his client. If one of the counsels has been heard on merits there is no obligation on the court to hear any other counsel. In this aspect of the matter when Sri Prakash Chandra had been heard there was no necessity to hear Sri B.B. Paul, and the judgment delivered by this court would be deemed to be on merits after hearing both the parties including the party which has come up in review. Moreover, the file shows that the case had been listed on 10.1.90 and was adjourned to 27.2.90. The Vakalatnama of Sri B.B. Paul was signed on 10.1.90, though, according to him, it had been filed in the court on 12.2.90. Be it as may when the Vakalatnama was filed it was the duty of the new counsel engaged namely Sri B.B. Paul to have inspected the file and to have learnt about the date himself, since adjourned date had been given by the court in the presence of the counsels for the parties. It was not necessary to issue fresh notice to any lawyer whose Vakalatnama had been filed subsequently. The date could have been verified from the file, as such if Sri B.B. Paul was not called by the party on the date of the argument he should thank himself. When Sri Prakash Chandra had submitted his arguments it was not necessary to have called Sri B.B. Paul separately, hence the application for review moved on this ground has no force. When Sri Prakash Chandra had submitted his arguments it was not necessary to have called Sri B.B. Paul separately, hence the application for review moved on this ground has no force. The other grounds taken in the review application are also without any merit because all the points have been squarely dealt with in the judgment. 5. In the result this review application fails and is hereby dismissed.