JUDGMENT : D.S. SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel for the applicant, at length and in detail. 2. The prayer of the applicant is to set aside/review the order and Judgment dated 23rd January, 1992 and restore the petition for deciding it afresh. 3. First ground on which the order and Judgment is sought to be set aside/reviewed is that it was passed ex-parte behind the back of the applicant without hearing her counsel. Indeed, an averment to this effect has been made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Sri Saidur Rahman Khan registered clerk of Sri Qadeer, filed in support of this application, which has been verified on personal knowledge of the deponent. 4. The averment made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Sri Saidur Rahman Khan is perse false and contrary to record. A perusal of the order and judgment dated 23rd January, 1992 would reveal that Sri A.N. Sharma, then representing the applicant, had appeared in the case and was heard. It is not disputed that Sri A.K. Sharma was counsel of the applicant on 23rd January, 1992. 5. The second ground for setting aside/reviewing the order and Judgment dated 23rd January 1992 as submitted by Sri Qadeer, learned Counsel for the applicant, is that in the order and Judgment it has been wrongly observed that the order impugned in the writ petition is an interlocutory order and it does not affect the right of the parties. Sri Qadeer submits that this error would not have crept in if toe counsel of me Petitioner had been heard. This submission of Sri Qadeer, which is based on the averment made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit of Sri Saidur Rahman Khan, is misconceived. Firstly, the order impugned in the writ petition was, in the opinion of the Court, interlocutory and did not affect any of the rights of the parties and the statement in this regard In the order and judgment is correct, secondly, even if it is assumed to be so for the sake of argument it would not be a ground for setting aside or reviewing the order of and judgment In as much as the observations were made in the presence the learned Counsel for the applicant and he did not object. The learned Counsel allowed the Court to proceed on the footing that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature and did not affect any right of the parties. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Court is clearly of the opinion that this application is frivolous. It is, therefore, dismissed. 7. Before parting with the case, the Court deems it to be its duty to denounce the conduct of Sri Saidur Rahman Khan in making a false averment in paragraph 9 of his affidavit, filed in support of this application. This is not the first instance of such a reprehensible conduct of Sri Saidur Rahman Khan. In support of Civil Misc. Application No. 3748, dated 17.2.1992, moved on behalf of the Petitioner for recalling the order and judgment dated 23rd January, 1992, Sri Saidur Rahman Khan filed his affidavit dated 28th January, 1992. In paragraph 2 of this affidavit he made a false statement, verified on personal knowledge, to the effect that the case was dismissed in default of the counsel of the Petitioner while the case was not dismissed in default. It was decided on merits. Making a false averment by an Advocate's Clerk before Court is grossly improper conduct in discharge of his professional duties and constitutes a sufficient cause warranting legal action under Rules of Court, 1952. The Registrar is directed to take appropriate action against Sri Saidur Rahman Khan, after giving him due opportunity to defend himself.