M.C.C. No.1503/2011 04.11.2011 The order of which recall is sought reads as under: "3-5-2011- After notices were directed to be issued, the learned counsel for the petitioners claim that he, due to oversight, supplied process only by ordinary process and not by registered post, because of which petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. A restoration has been applied by way of MCC No.667/2011. It does not appear that respondents have put in appearance so far. In the circumstances, the MCC is allowed. The dismissal for non-prosecution is set aside and the writ petition is restored, subject to the strict condition that now steps be taken afresh by ordinary process as well as registered AD within a week." Now, an application has been moved for setting aside the earlier order on the ground that notice was never directed to be issued and the entire statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners about the steps having been taken and process having been supplied only by ordinary post and not by registered AD is totally baseless and incorrect. On the strength of such argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the petitioners the Court restored the writ petition. Now, a different counsel has moved this application saying that the restoration was obtained because of the grossest and inexcusable mis-statement of fact by the earlier counsel for the petitioners and every thing should be condoned. We are of the opinion, that if this kind of misconduct by the counsel is condoned, it would further encourage such irresponsible advocacy. 1 Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this recall application, being MCC No.1503/2011. It is accordingly dismissed. (Sushil Harkauli) (S.C. Sinho) Acting Chief Justice Judge ac. 2 3