( 1 ) BY this writ petition the two petitioners herein seek quashing of an F. I. R. dated 27. 3. 2007 registered as case Crime No. 163 of 2007 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B I. P. C. They also seek an interim order staying their arrest during pendency of this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE F. I. R. is a short, one and a half page, document which clearly alleges that a registered power of attorney was got executed and registered fraudulently by the petitioner No. 1 in the name of the complainant by setting up an imposter lady. It is also alleged that the photograph on the power of attorney is that of the imposter lady. The petitioner No. 2 is a witness on the power of attorney. Photocopy of the 2 page power of attorney has been filed with this writ petition as Annexure 2, which bears the photograph on its second page. ( 3 ) IT is very unfortunate that there is not a single paragraph or sentence in the writ petition meeting the said specific allegations in the short F. I. R. There is no pleading saying or even suggesting that the photograph on the photocopy of the power of attorney (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) is that of the complainant and not of any other lady. ( 4 ) WE failed to see how learned counsel for the petitioners expected the F. I. R. to be quashed without meeting the vital and specific allegation about the fraudulent execution of the registered power of attorney by an imposter. After the arguments, when we were about to dismiss this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that this case may be put up tomorrow as a fresh case to enable him to make good the deficiency in the pleadings by filing a supplementary affidavit. ( 5 ) WE have noticed that because this kind of indulgence to counsel has been liberally granted by various Benches over a period of time in the recent past, learned members of the Bar have lost the incentive and ability to prepare the complete case before drafting, filing and arguing the same. Now, the need for preparation is felt by learned counsel when the case reaches the point of dismissal after preliminary hearing. Now, the need for preparation is felt by learned counsel when the case reaches the point of dismissal after preliminary hearing. And, even thereafter the preparation lacks requisite hard work, because the counsel feels that if he does not succeed, he can again ask for another opportunity by way of further adjournment, and the process may continue endlessly. Further, a wrong impression has been created in the minds of the counsel that it is almost their right to get the matters adjourned to a date of their choice. ( 6 ) NORMALLY, a case is required to be examined, considered and prepared from every angle of fact and law before the drafting begins by counsel. Competent counsel learn, in due course of time, to anticipate the questions which the Court is likely to ask, the difficulties which the Bench is likely to experience in accepting the prayer and the reasons advanced by way of arguments and to incorporate proper pleadings, to search out necessary case law and to develop necessary logical arguments to meet such anticipated objections or questions. ( 7 ) THIS kind of indulgence, which has been granted in the recent past by the Honble Judges of this Court to the learned counsel, is basically impelled by desire on part of the Judges to do justice in the cause, so that the litigant may not suffer due incompetence or negligence of counsel. But we are of the considered opinion that the indulgence has become counter productive, inasmuch as the Court has to waste its time hearing the same arguments again and again thereby depriving other litigants waiting in the queue, of the chance to get their cases heard. Moreover, as already stated above, instead of grooming the members of the Bar to develop their ability and potential and power of anticipation by real hard preparation impelled by the threat of dismissal in limine, the indulgence has resulted in reducing such qualities in the members of the Bar, who do not feel the need of preparing the case till dismissal becomes imminent and thereafter they start patching up their pleadings by a number of supplementary affidavits filed one after the other. The utter confusion caused by multiple supplementary affidavits is another story. The utter confusion caused by multiple supplementary affidavits is another story. ( 8 ) EVEN, in the Supreme Court, which is the last and final Court, it is unheard of that when the S. L. P. starts getting dismissed, counsel says that the matter may be taken up on the next day because he has not seen even the obvious and has not prepared the case either from the factual point of view or from the legal point of view. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the age old principle of the greatest good of the greatest number, we feel that even if one or two litigants do suffer on account of engaging not so competent or diligent lawyers, chances would certainly improve for the larger section of bona fide and deserving litigants to get a hearing and the order which they deserve, if the Court saves its time from being wasted in hearing repeat argument in cases which have not been prepared with due care, attention and labour. Moreover, the odd case where gross injustice may result to a litigant due to inefficiency of counsel, the litigant has the remedy of filing an SLP before the Supreme Court. And the number of such odd cases will keep on reducing with passage of time because, hopefully, the members of the Bar will, with incentive for hard work, improve in their performance. ( 10 ) OFCOURSE there can never be an absolute rule. The exceptions, for example, would be those rare cases where during arguments a question arises which could not be expected to be anticipated by a reasonably competent counsel despite due preparation; or cases where the Court itself requires further preparation and assistance from the Bar having regard to the importance or nature of issues involved. ( 11 ) IN the present case, we decline the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that he failed to see the obvious, viz. that for getting the FIR quashed he was required to meet the specific clear allegation in the short F. I. R. by making the necessary pleading of defence in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. .