JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Petitioner had appeared in LL.M. Examination, Part-I, of Utkal University in the year 1990, but failed in one Paper. In 1991, he appeared in Part-II Examination and also repeated the Paper dealing with Interpretation of Statutes in which he had failed in Part-I. However, he secured 36 marks in the said Paper. Since pass mark in each paper was 40, he was declared unsuccessful even though he had secured the requisite aggregate marks in all the Papers. The petitioner filed OJC No. 6856 of 1992 contending inter alia, that the "hard case rule" should have been applied and 0.5% of the total marks should have been added in which event he would have passed in the Examination. The said writ application was dismissed by order dated 28.3.1 995. This Review Application has been filed for reviewing the aforesaid order. 2. Several contentions have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner. However, in view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to discuss the various contentions. It appears that on 23.3.1995, the counsel for petitioner was absent and petitioner who was present in Court had to argue the case himself. It has been submitted by the petitioner that though he was a Law Graduate, he was not adept in the matter of making submissions before a Court and as such all the relevant points could not be placed before the Court. It has been submitted that the counsel who had been engaged by the petitioner could not attend the Court due to sudden illness of his mother. It has been asserted in the review application that though the petitioner had prayed for adjournment, the prayer was refused and the petitioner per force had to argue the case without being fully prepared. 3. The right to be represented by lawyer is a valuable right. It is. of course, true that any litigant can conduct his own case in a Court of law. Where, however, a litigant has engaged an Advocate, in normal course, the case has to be conducted by the Advocate unless the litigant himself expressly desires to conduct the case himself. From the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are convinced that the petitioner had to argue his case in person due to circumstances beyond his control. Where, however, a litigant has engaged an Advocate, in normal course, the case has to be conducted by the Advocate unless the litigant himself expressly desires to conduct the case himself. From the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are convinced that the petitioner had to argue his case in person due to circumstances beyond his control. as the counsel engaged by him could not attend the Court due to unforeseen circumstances. In these circumstances, we think interest of justice would be served by recalling the order dated 28.3.1995 and directing that the writ application shall be placed for fresh disposal. 4. In the result, we recall the order dated 28.3.1995 and direct that OJC No. 6856 of 1992 shall be placed for disposal before any appropriate Bench. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. D.M. Patnaik, J. 5. I agree.