JUDGMENTS This is an application to restore WPMP No.16631 of 2006 in WP No.13378 of 2006. 2. Heard Sri D. Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record 3. WPMP No.16631 of 2006 was posted for hearing on 22.4.2008. As there was no representation for the petitioner at the hearing, the said application was dismissed by this Court for default. The petitioner in the said WPMP, who is also the writ petitioner, filed the present application to restore the said WPMP. In her affidavit she stated that on 27.6.2008 she obtained a slip from the Court for listing of WPMP No.1663l of 2006, that as the application was not listed on 30.6.2008, as expected by her, she made enquiries with the registry and that the section clerk in-charge of the case brought to her notice on 30.6.2008 that the WPMP was listed before this Court on 21.4.2008 and that order was passed on the said date. She also averred that to her surprise no order was passed on 21.4.2008. She further stated that "the circumstances that led to pass such orders are highly arbitrary and unjust". The petitioner further stated that the Court ought to have given a chance of posting the case for "dismissal for default" on another date and that there is no negligence on her part as she was seriously pursuing the case for more than two years. 4. The tenor of the contents of the affidavit above discussed, lacks any modicum of decency and the same borders on arrogance. Such an affidavit is not expected from any litigant, more so, when she is a practicing Advocate. The petitioner does not appear to have taken the trouble of verifying the actual date on which the order, dismissing the application, was passed. She has evidently gathered incorrect information regarding the date of dismissal of the application. As evident from the proceeding sheet, WPMP No.1663l of 2006 was listed on 22.4.2008 and dismissed on the same day as the petitioner was not represented by either her Counselor herself. The fact that the case went unrepresented on behalf of the petitioner is not disputed and cannot be disputed by her. As evident from the proceeding sheet, WPMP No.1663l of 2006 was listed on 22.4.2008 and dismissed on the same day as the petitioner was not represented by either her Counselor herself. The fact that the case went unrepresented on behalf of the petitioner is not disputed and cannot be disputed by her. Surprisingly, instead of offering an explanation for the absence of either her Counselor herself, she termed dismissal of the application by the Court as "highly arbitrary and unjust" on a thorough misconception that the Court shall not dismiss a case for default at the first instance and that it should be posted for "dismissal for default". The petitioner, who claims to be a practicing Advocate, should do well to realize that the proceedings of the Court are regulated by the presiding Judge and no litigant or a Counsel representing such a litigant has any right to interfere with this prerogative. When a case is called, it is the duty of the Counsel to be present in the Court and if the Counsel is prevented by sufficient cause for his absence or in making alternative arrangement to represent the party on his behalf, it is the obligation of the party to explain the reason for his Counsel's failure to do so, if he seeks restoration of the case. Far from offering any semblance of explanation, the petitioner has indulged in insinuation not only by seeking to suggest to the Court the procedure to be followed, but also by terming the act of dismissal of the application in default as arbitrary and unjust. Though this conduct on the part of the petitioner calls for a stringent action, I felt it appropriate to take a lenient view by administering a caution to the petitioner that repetition of such a conduct will not be spared in future. 5. As the petitioner failed to offer any cause whatsoever, much less sufficient cause, for her and her Counsel's absence on 22.4.2008, the application is dismissed.