6. Before we conclude, we find that Registry has shown the name of the counsel who represented the respondent in the CoD petition being C.M.P. No.12137 of 2024 which was filed by the appellant with a prayer for condonation of 17 days delay in filing the captioned appeal. As delay that was sought to be condoned is delay in 'filing', notice was ordered to respondent and CoD CMP was allowed after hearing respondent who entered appearance through counsel. On disposal of the CMP (C.M.P. No.12137 of 2024 on 18.06.2024) wherein and whereby the delay was condoned, the vakalatnama filed by the respondent in the CMP also comes to an end. Merely because a counsel has represented the respondent in the delay condonation (CoD CMP), the name should not be shown when the appeal is listed for admission. To be noted, the appeal itself comes into existence only after condonation of delay. It is seen that such a practice is being adopted by the Registry repeatedly. In the case on hand, we find that the respondent has filed vakalatnama dated 08.07.2024 in the captioned appeal after disposal of CRP on 07.02.2024. A scanned reproduction of the vakalatnama is as follows:
