Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri A.K. Rai, Advocate, for the applicant. 2. This is an application seeking recall of my order dated 9.4.2013 whereby appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. Hearing of this Second Appeal was expedited by Apex Court vide order dated 14.9.2009 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6254-6255 of 2009 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1810-1911 of 2009. Apex Court has required this Court to decide the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible. It was listed before this Bench on 8.4.2013 under the heading "Supreme Court Expedited Cases" and, hence, as per practice of this Court, giving due preference, it was taken up. Despite the case having been called twice, none appeared on behalf of appellant though five counsels were shown in the cause list appearing for appellant, namely, Sri M.P. Bajpai, Sri A.K. Rai, Sri Amit Saxena, Sri P.N. Saxena (Senior Advocate) and Sri V.K. Singh. Since none appeared, this Court could have dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution on the same day, but having regard to the request of Apex Court that appeal may be decided on merits, giving another opportunity to the appellant, I directed this matter to be taken up on the next date by my order dated 8.4.2013. In para 4 of the affidavit accompanying the application under consideration, it is not the case of the learned counsels appearing for appellant that they had no notice of aforesaid listing of appeal, and, virtually there is no explanation as to why they did not appear on 8.4.2013 though the case was called twice. On the next date, i.e. 9.4.2013, again the case was called twice yet non appeared on behalf of appellant. This Court could have decided the matter on merits, but looking to the procedural statutory provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, I refrain from doing so and in that circumstances, having no other option, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 4. The reason explained for non appearance on 9.4.2013 in para 5 of the affidavit accompanying the present Recall/Restoration Application is that in the Additional Cause List, names of Sri A.K. Rai and Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, Advocates were not shown, and, therefore, they could not mark it. 4. The reason explained for non appearance on 9.4.2013 in para 5 of the affidavit accompanying the present Recall/Restoration Application is that in the Additional Cause List, names of Sri A.K. Rai and Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, Advocates were not shown, and, therefore, they could not mark it. This fact, I have verified from the Computer List of this Court preserved by Bench Secretary and therein I find that names of all the Counsels shown in the cause list of 8.4.2013 were repeated on 9.4.2013 and names of Sri A.K. Rai and Sri V.K. Singh, Advocates, were also printed. 5. When Sri Rai, learned counsel appearing for applicant-appellant, was confronted with the aforesaid preserved Additional Cause List/Computer List of this Court, he expressed his regret and said that he obtained an Internet copy wherein his name was not shown. The explanation is neither here nor there and clearly in the teeth of document on record and available in the Court. Why such a false affidavit has been sworn, is easily understandable, inasmuch since there was no earnest endeavour on the part of learned counsels appearing on behalf of appellant to appear and argue the case on merits and they also had no valid justification for non appearance, a mischievous explanation has been carved out. Probably the applicant-appellant was not aware of this fact that, as a practice, Bench Secretaries of this Court preserve the Cause List and Additional Cause List/Computer List of the Court for a year and more so as to meet out the controversies, if arise, as in the case in hand, and for various other reasons. That is how this mischievous but false statement has got controverted from the record maintained by this Court. When further inquired, learned counsel for appellant could not dispute that on 9.4.2013, neither any counsel nor the Clerk of counsels appearing on behalf of appellant, came to the Court or perused the Computer List/Additional Cause List displayed outside the Court and also kept by the Bench Secretary. They simply avoided the matter. Subsequently, when attempt was made to prepare this application, a false excuse has been worked out, but that too, in vain, due to a healthy practice maintained by Bench Secretaries of this Court. 6. They simply avoided the matter. Subsequently, when attempt was made to prepare this application, a false excuse has been worked out, but that too, in vain, due to a healthy practice maintained by Bench Secretaries of this Court. 6. I would have proceeded for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the deponent who has filed this false affidavit making a serious but false averment in para 5 of the affidavit, but on the repeated repentance and regret shown by Sri Rai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant, and also on his assurance that a similar mistake shall not recur in future and he shall take extraordinary care in such matters, I am dropping further proceedings. 7. So far as this application is concerned, it is founded on a false averment and also shows no explanation or justification or reason for non appearance on two consecutive dates, i.e. 8.4.2013 and 9.4.2013, particularly, when there are five counsels appearing on behalf of applicant-appellant, I find no justification to recall the order dated 9.4.2013. 8. Application is rejected. _____________