Y. K. Sabharwal, J. ( 1 ) [ed. facts : Appellant was employee of respondent. He filed W. P. which was disposed of by Judgement dt. 9. 4. 96 by Single Judge on Statement of Counsel of respondent that most of the claims of appellant were being acceded to. Appellant applied for clarification on 22. 5. 96. It was dismissed on 14. 8. 96. Appellant filed L. P. A. on 2. 1. 97 with an application for condonation of delay supporting same by 2 affidavits. Appeal etc. purpoted to bear 4 signatures of K. K. Mehrotra, Adv. The case was thrice adjourneed on 6. 2. 97,19. 2. 97 and 2. 5. 97 as counsel was not available. Mr. Mehrotra appeared on 8. 7. 97 and took adjournment for 12. 8. 97. He did not appear and case was adjourned to 12. 11. 97 when he submitted that he had filed amendment applications which were not on record and case was adjourned to 12. 1. 98 and then 20. 1. 98. In the amendments, it was stated that appellant engaged Mr. Mehrotra only on 8. 7. 97 and before that his counsel was Mr. JPN Gupta who was misguiding appellant and that resulted in delay in filing appeal. On 20. 1. 98, Mr. Mehrotra stated that he never signed on 4 papers filed in the Court on 2. 1. 97 and that he signed papers only after 8. 7. 97 and appellant had been duped by his earlier lawyer Mr. JPN Gupta. The Court ordered issuance of notice to Mr. Gupta and respondents. Mr. Gupta filed his affidavit dt. 16. 3. 98 saying that he, Mr. Mehrotra and many other juniors including Mr. Kathuria were working with S. K. Sinha, Adv. in Chamber No. 52, Supreme Court where S. K. Sinha and his father, a Senior Adv. were working. He also stated that appellant and Mr. Kathuria were neighbours at Gurgaon and that appellant had not paid him anything for his labours and that he stopped working for appellant after mid 96 and he never applied for copy of judgment of Single Judge and it was done by appellant himself. The Court allowed Mr. Gupta to file affidavits dt. 23. 5. 98 and 16. 5. 98. In these Mr. Gupta disclosed that one Sanjay Lodi was clerk of Mr. Sinha, Adv. and he in consperacy with Mr. The Court allowed Mr. Gupta to file affidavits dt. 23. 5. 98 and 16. 5. 98. In these Mr. Gupta disclosed that one Sanjay Lodi was clerk of Mr. Sinha, Adv. and he in consperacy with Mr. Mehrotra was putting latter s signature on Court papers and were taking undue and illegal benefit of same and they did something similar in Supreme Court which is evident from order of Supreme Court in Bihar State Housing Board Vs. SN Prasad 1998 (2) SCC. 681 ]after detailing above, Judgment is: ( 2 ) AT this stage, we may notice that it would be a very serious matter if Mr. Gupta has duped the appellant and has signed or got someone else to sign as k. K. Mehrotra on the papers of appeal etc. including Vakalatnama filed on 2nd January 1997. The fabrication of signatures by any Advocate oral his instance cannot be treated lightly. Such a serious matter deserves to be taken to its logical conclusion and not glossed over by simply disposing of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. At the same time if Mr. J. P. N. Gupta, Advocate has been made a scapegoat to somehow or the other get the delay in filing the appeal condoned from this court, is no less a serious matter and is rather more serious. It would amount to abuse of the process of the court and would amount to even playing fraud on the court knowing that the courts are lenient in condoning the delay when it occurs on account of negligence of the counsel generally taking the view that litigant shall not be made to suffer for the negligence of his counsel. (- - -) ( 3 ) IN 1998 (2) SCC. 681 , Supreme Court said: "before parting with the case a disquieting feature was brought to our notice, namely, an affidavit of a dead man was filed in the Registry by the advocate- on-record concerned but later on he has tried to wriggle out of the situation by trying to exclude the document from the paper-book. We have already directed an enquiry into the matter as to how the Oath Commissioner concerned could attest the signature of the deponent on me date on which be was not alive. We have already directed an enquiry into the matter as to how the Oath Commissioner concerned could attest the signature of the deponent on me date on which be was not alive. We would have also taken a serious view of the matter against the advocate-on-record who filed the same in the Registry of this court but we refrain from doing so in view of the unconditional apology tendered at the hearing. We, however, would observe that the atmosphere of the Court may not be polluted by filing of any forged document for some benefit in any individual for some no advocate on record who is an officer of the court should involve himself in filing such a document. " ( 4 ) IT has not been disputed by either Mr. Malhotra or Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for Mr. J. P. N. Gupta, Advocate, that Mr. Sanjay Lodhi is the registered Clerk of Mr. S. K. Sinha who is the Advocate on record referred to in the above passage. Mr. J. P. N. Gupta has also placed on record a Memorandum dated 13. 2. 98 issued by Supreme Court issueing warning to Mr. Sanjay Lodhi to be more careful and not to indulge in wrong practice of identifying the signatures of a dead person. ( 5 ) THE appellant in his affidavit dated 20th May 1998 has interalia, stated that Mr. Mehrotra was a trainee under Sh. K. K. Sinha, Adv. for his Advocate- on-record exam. passed in 1971 and that Mr. Mehrotra neither professionally nor is otherwise associated with Mr. S. K. Sinha, Adv. nor was he ever classmate of Mr. S. K. Sinha, Adv. He further states that Mr. K. K. Sinha allowed Mr; K. K. Mehtrotra alongwith others to put in name plate on Chamber No. 52 for last 4/5 months for Supreme Court filing and work only (Emphasis supplied by us ). An identity card of Mr. Sanjay Lodhi has been filed by the appellant alongwith his affidavit to show that Lodhi was clerk of Mr. S. K. Sinha and not of Mr. K. K. Mehrotra. He has stated that Mr. Mehrotra, Adv. came to scene only on llth May 1997. ( 6 ) WHEN we took up the matter on 22. 5. 98 noticing that in the affidavit of Mr. J. P. N. Gupta serious allegations had been made against Mr. S. K. Sinha and not of Mr. K. K. Mehrotra. He has stated that Mr. Mehrotra, Adv. came to scene only on llth May 1997. ( 6 ) WHEN we took up the matter on 22. 5. 98 noticing that in the affidavit of Mr. J. P. N. Gupta serious allegations had been made against Mr. K. K. Mehrotra, we granted an opportunity to Mr. Mehrotra to file an affidavit. ( 7 ) MR. Mehtrora, in his affidavit dated 28. 5. 98, interalia states that:- "i say that I have never operated from Chamber No. 52, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi. Annexures K-1 to K-18 shall speak of my place of operation. Only for the last 5/6 months, in five or four filings, chamber No. 52, when permitted, is used for address purposes. No operation is from the said chamber. Even for my Supreme Court work, my earlier residence at Jogiwara, then office address at 1/6-B, Asaf Ali Road and new residence at Jagriti Enclave were the places or addresses for operation. Annexure K-19 and K-20 shall prove recent use of chamber No. 52 for filing purpose only. " "i am not a classmate of Mr. S. K. Sinha, Adv. nor am I ever associated with him through-out my professional career in any case whatsoever or any where wheresoever. I am an independant person and never believe in any association whatsoever, so far my professional career is concerned. "- - - - I say that Sanjay Lodhi is not my clerk nor does he work for me. L. P. A. No. 26/97 was not filed by Sanjay Lodhi at my instance/instructions. I was never aware of the tact that L. P. A. 26/97 was being filed or was not aware of any proceedings of this case prior to 8. 7. 1997. " ( 8 ) MR. J. P. N. Gupta has tiled an affidavit dated 14. 7. 98. We may notice that Mr. Mehrotra did not want any further opportunity to file an affidavit to rebut or explain the factual statements made by Mr. Gupta in affidavit dated 14. 7. 98, Alongwith this affidavit Mr. Gupta has filed certain documents to show that Mr. Mehrotra had been operating from Chamber No. 52, Supreme Court Compound not only for the last 5/6 months as stated in the affidavit of Mr. Gupta in affidavit dated 14. 7. 98, Alongwith this affidavit Mr. Gupta has filed certain documents to show that Mr. Mehrotra had been operating from Chamber No. 52, Supreme Court Compound not only for the last 5/6 months as stated in the affidavit of Mr. Mehrotra but he has been operating from that chamber from much earlier period. These documents have been filed to demostrate that how false are the statements made in the affidavit of Mr. Mehrotra to the effect that Mr. Sanjay Lodhi is not his clerk nor does he work for him. Certain documents have also been filed by Mr. Gupta to show that Sanjay Lodhi had not only been working for number of years as a clerk for Mr. Mehrotra but he has been even filing matters of Mr. Mehrotra before Supreme Court by signing on different papers including Vakalatnama purporting to bear the signatures of Mr. Mehrotra but in fact being signed by Lodhi. It isclaimed that all this was done under the directions/instructions of Mr. Mehrotra and with his approval. Further documents have been filed by Mr. Gupta to demostrate that the contention of Mr. Mehrotra in his affidavit that he has not been associated with Mr. S. K. Sinha, Adv. is also incorrect. The documents, Mr. Gupta says, clearly show but that Mr. Mehrotra had been regularly using Chamber No. 52 and he has long association with Mr. S. K. Sinha, Adv. and further that not only Sanjay Lodhi, the registered clerk of Mr. S. K. Sinha has been working for Mr. Mehrotra but he has also been forging the signatures ot mr. K. K. Mehrotra with his tacit concent and directions. ( 9 ) MOST of the documents filed with the affidavit of Mr. Gupta dated 14th July 1998 are photostat copies of certified copies obtained from the Supreme Court. These documents are in respect of cases in the Supreme Court in which admittedly Mr. K. K. Mehrotra is an advocate. This fact has not been denied by Mr. Menrotra. Some of these documents pertain to SLPNo. 6165/97 Amarnath Singh Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra, Special Leave Petition No. 11884/97 Smt. Suman Virmani Vs. Nanak Chand Gupta. Apart from the fact that these documents show that the forms with the name of Mr. S. K. Sinha printed thereupon have been used in the cases in which admittedly Mr. Menrotra. Some of these documents pertain to SLPNo. 6165/97 Amarnath Singh Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra, Special Leave Petition No. 11884/97 Smt. Suman Virmani Vs. Nanak Chand Gupta. Apart from the fact that these documents show that the forms with the name of Mr. S. K. Sinha printed thereupon have been used in the cases in which admittedly Mr. Mehrotra is the counsel but that by itself my not be a serious matter except that it shows close link between S. K. Sinha and Mr. Mehrotra. But what is serious, however, is that one of the documents (Vakalatnama in the case of Amar Nath Singh) which purports to bear the signature of Mr. Mehrotra also mentions his address as Chamber No. 52 but in fact signed by Lodhi was filed in the Supreme Court on 23. 10. 96 and on the authority of this Vakalatnama, Mr. Mehrotra has been appearing in the said case before Supreme Court. Mr. Mehrotra did not dispute that the said Vakalatnama does not bear his signatures though it purports to be signed by him. Further it was also not disputed that his signatures on the said Vakalatnama were appended by Sanjay Lodhi and admittedly he was appearing in that matter on the basis of same power of attorney and had not filed any other power of attorney. Certain other documents are of May 1997 and of the period thereafter with the address of Mr. Mehrotra as Chamber No. 52, Lawyers Chamber. These documents show how false is the plea in the affidavit of Mr. Mehrotra that he has been using only for address purposes Chamber No. 52 for the last 5/6 months. As already noticed above, what is much more serious is signing of Vakalatnama and other documents by Lodhi as Mr. K. K. Mehrotra with his tacit consent. The Vakalatnama in the case of Suman Virmani though is admittedly signed by Mr. K. K. Mehrotra but is filed in Supreme Court with the index of papers suporting to bear signatures of Mr. K. K. Mehrotra but in tact signed by Lodhi as K. K. Mehrotra. Mr. K. K. Mehrotra admits it before us. ( 10 ) PRIMA facie the person who has signed the papers filed in this court on 2. 1. 97 k. K. Mehrotra is the same person who has signed the aforesaid documents likewise and filed the same in Supreme Court. Mr. K. K. Mehrotra admits it before us. ( 10 ) PRIMA facie the person who has signed the papers filed in this court on 2. 1. 97 k. K. Mehrotra is the same person who has signed the aforesaid documents likewise and filed the same in Supreme Court. ( 11 ) IT is over simplification to plead and contend on behalf of the appellant that without going into the question as to which of the Advocate has duped the appellant he has been in fact duped and thus delay in filing appeal by him deserves to be condoned On the facts of the case such a contention deserves outright rejection. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is not innocent was sought to be contended by Mr. Mehrotra. We may note that the appellant admitted during course of hearing before us that Mr. Kathuria, Adv. of Gurgaon was his neighbour and he had first taken him to the chamber of Mr. Sinlia. Whether it was Mr. K. K. Sinha or Mr. S. K. Sinha we are neither in position to authoritatively decide in these proceedings nor it is so necessary. It seems evident that the appellant was a party to the plea of negligence of counsel being set out in order to somehow or the other obtain from this court orders condoning delay in filing the appeal. Appellant on various dates in this appeal appeared in person. He does not say that after obtaining adjournment, he ever informed Mr. Gupta, Advocate, but says that he informed only Mr. Kathuria, Advocate. It has also to be noticed that the appellant is nnot an illiterate person. ( 12 ) IN our considered view the plea of appellant having been duped by Mr. Gupta, Advocate, is wholly misconceived. On the other hand, attempt was made to dupe this court. It is a clear case of abuse of the process of law. In fact on 2. 1. 97 there was no proper appeal before this court as according to the appellant the appeal is not signed by his counsel and it also does not bear the signatures of me appellant. From this view point the delay in filing appeal would not be 222 days but much more. The appellant has failed to establish sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. From this view point the delay in filing appeal would not be 222 days but much more. The appellant has failed to establish sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. The applications seeking condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 20,000. 00 and payable within two weeks to Delhi Legal Service Authority, Room No. 1, Patiala House, New Delhi-110001. ( 13 ) HAVING bestowed our thoughtful consideration, we feel that the facts are so glaring that it would amount to failure of duty on our part to close that matter by order of dismissal of appeal, It is not a feeling of anger but is of anguish for the reason that Advocates are officers of court. If officers of court start conducting themselves in the manner shown in this case, what example they would set for others. Who will protect victims ? Who will take care of dignity of courts ? The legal profession was known to be a noble profession which has set up highest traditions and has produced stalwarts. These stalwarts have made useful contribution in other fields as well and have played a vital decisive factor in the freedom struggle. Such a course of conduct from a member of legal fraternity deserves to be severaly dealt with lest it may encourage others. The warning by the highest court, as noticed hereinabove, has not produced the desired result as is apparent from the facts of this case. There is no difficulty in adopting an attitude of leniency and showing magnanimity rather than to adhere to nail studded path of painful duty while dealing with a member of your own family. We, however, feel that on the facts of the case, showing indulgence and magnanimity would not subserve the ends of justice and, therefore, we have to perform the painful duty of taking the matter to its logical end. ( 14 ) WE, therefore, direct that a copy of this order with photocopies of all the papers filed in this petition be sent forthwith to Registrar General of Supreme Court of India and to Bar Counsil of India and Bar Counsil of Delhi for them to take such action as may be deemed necessary. ( 14 ) WE, therefore, direct that a copy of this order with photocopies of all the papers filed in this petition be sent forthwith to Registrar General of Supreme Court of India and to Bar Counsil of India and Bar Counsil of Delhi for them to take such action as may be deemed necessary. ( 15 ) AT the end we may only note that the observations made in this order will not have any effect on the rights and contentions of anyone in any proceedings which may be initiated as a result of this order.