Shri Baryam Singh vs. State of HP and others CMP No. 4162 of 2025 in CWP No. 1335 of 2020 21.03.2025 Present: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate for the non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for the non- applicants/respondents-State. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate for the applicant/respondent No. 2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for non-applicant/ respondent No. 4. By way of this application, a prayer has been made by the applicant for setting aside ex parte judgment dated 04.09.2024 on the ground that complete name of learned Counsel was not mentioned in the Cause List. In order to verify this fact as to what was the name of the learned Counsel mentioned in the power of attorney that was filed with the Registry of this Court, this Court went through the record of the case. A perusal of the record demonstrates that learned Counsel, in fact, has not filed power of attorney on behalf of his client/ respondent No. 2. Meaning thereby that his name was being reflected in the Cause List just on account of his presence being earlier marked by this Court on the previous dates. The Name reflected in the Cause list was Sanjeev Kumar. This Court is of the considered view that until and unless power of attorney is filed by a Counsel on behalf of his client, except the offices of learned Advocate General and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Registry of the Court is not obliged to mention name of any learned Counsel in the Cause List. It is mandatory for every Counsel, be it a private counsel or Standing Counsel for any institution to file power of attorney on behalf of his client. This is more so for the reason that the practice which is now prevalent is that each Board/Corporation etc. has more than one Standing Counsel representing it. In light of above, as this Court does not finds any merit in the application, the same is dismissed. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 21, 2025 (narender)