BRIJESH CHANDRAPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's substantive Writ Petition (original application) No.3316/2005 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24-9-2009 and his application for restoration was dismissed by the impugned order holding the application to be barred by limitation. Feeling unhappy and disagreed with the order impugned, the appellant herein has filed this writ appeal.

(2.) Mr. Anukul Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an illegality in rejecting the application for restoration holding the same to be barred by limitation. He would further submit that the name of the appellant's counsel was not correctly shown in the cause list, therefore, the appellant could not notice the listing of case, and as such, the writ petition came to be dismissed and the learned Single Judge committed an illegality in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and further rejecting the application for restoration of writ petition.

(3.) On being asked whether the writ appeal is maintainable, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the writ appeal is maintainable under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, as order rejecting restoration application is an order within the meaning of Section 2 (1) of the Act of 2006.