ORDER Application for setting aside the abatement by condoning the delay is allowed. 2. Application for bringing on record the legal representatives of appellant is allowed. Application for deletion of the name of respondent No.1 from the array of the parties is disposed. 3. Leave granted. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.06.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No.501/2017, the legal representatives of the deceased appellant-Baljeet Singh are now prosecuting this appeal. 5. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondentsplaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance against the original defendant-Baljeet Singh. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.08.2011. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the original defendant-Baljeet Singh preferred Civil Appeal before the First Appellate Court which was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017. Hence, Baljeet Singh preferred Second Appeal No.501/2017 before the High Court. 6. In the Second Appeal, learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs took an objection to the fact that the stay of the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court was sought by way of an application which had been supported by an affidavit which was signed by Sri Rohit Kumar Tyagi, the very counsel who had been engaged by the original appellant to file first appeal; that the said stay application could not have been verified and an affidavit could not have been filed before the High Court by the very advocate who had been engaged to file the said First Appeal. 7. In the circumstances, it was contended that the appeal filed before the High Court containing an affidavit in support of the application for stay signed by the learned counsel who had filed the First Appeal before the First Appellate Court was a serious irregularity and therefore, the Second Appeal was not maintainable. 8. In other words, the objection raised by the respondents- plaintiffs was that the application for stay filed in the Second Appeal which was supported by an affidavit by the learned counsel who filed the First Appeal on behalf of the original defendant was not just and proper inasmuch as the counsel could not have verified and filed such a supporting affidavit in the capacity of a pairokar. 9. 9. On the basis of the said submissions, the High Court, relying on a judgment of this Court in Vinoy Kumar vs. State of UP & Ors. [ (2001) 4 SCC 734 ] and on the basis of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 observed that an advocate, Sri Rohit Kumar Tyagi, could not have filed the affidavit in support of the application seeking stay before the High Court; that it amounted to a professional misconduct and therefore, while exonerating the said advocate, strangely dismissed the Second Appeal. Hence, this appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 11. During the course of submissions, appellant’s counsel submitted that the High Court seriously erred in dismissing the entire second appeal without going into the merits of the case merely because it found an irregularity on the part of the advocate who had filed the first appeal on behalf of the original defendant also filing an affidavit in support of the application seeking an interim stay of the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court along with the memorandum of Second Appeal filed before the High Court. He submitted that the High Court in fact exonerated the learned counsel who had committed the said irregularity while stating that it did not propose to refer the matter to the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council and thereby virtually forgave the irregularity committed by the learned counsel. When that was so, strangely the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal. As a result, the High Court has not decided the Second Appeal on merits, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice as the appellant has not been able to get hearing of his Second Appeal on merits. Therefore, the impugned order may be set-aside and the matter may be remanded to the High Court for hearing the Second Appeal on merits. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no merits in this appeal. 13. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar in light of the impugned order and the material on record. 14. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no merits in this appeal. 13. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar in light of the impugned order and the material on record. 14. Even if the advocate, Sri Rohit Kumar Tyagi, had filed an affidavit in support of an application seeking stay of the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court along with memorandum of second appeal filed in the High Court and the same was held to be an irregularity, the same could not have resulted in the dismissal of the Second Appeal on merits. The High Court could have given an opportunity to the appellant to rectify the said irregularity and heard the Second Appeal on merits. Strangely, the High Court has bypassed the said procedure and has straightaway dismissed the appeal on merits. On that short ground alone, the impugned order is set-aside; the matter is remanded back to the High Court by restoring the Second Appeal No.501/2017 on the file of the High Court. The High Court is now requested to hear the said Second Appeal on merits. 15. It is needless to observe that since the appeal is of the year 2017, the same shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and disposed of in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to all the parties. 16. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 17. No costs. 18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.