LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-51

RAJ NARAIN SINGH Vs. RAGHUNANDAN SINGH

Decided On September 12, 1997
RAJ NARAIN SINGH Appellant
V/S
RAGHUNANDAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. An application dated 17-5-1996 was moved for restoration of the writ petition dismissed in default on 8- 4-1996. Since there was delay in moving the restoration application, a separate ap plication for condonation of delay has been filed and an affidavit of Harihar Singh has also been filed.

(2.) IT is stated in the affidavit of Harihar Singh that this writ petition was listed along with Second Appeal No. 2125 of 1979 between the parties on 8-4-1996 and both were dismissed in default of the petitioners and appellant. On the same date restoration application for appeal and writ petition was moved as both were connected and only one application was moved. On 17-5-1996 the second appeal was listed, but not the writ petition aforesaid. The restoration applica tion of the second appeal was allowed. IT is, therefore, this application for restoration of the writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants contended that since writ petition and the second appeal were listed on the same date, namely 8-4-1996 and he could not appear in the revised list, both, the writ petition and the second ap peal, were dismissed in default. On the same date, namely, 8-4-96, restoration applica tion was moved in the second appeal under the impression that both were connected. THE restoration application in the second appeal was allowed. On 17-5-1996 the second appeal was listed but not the writ petition. When it came to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petition was" dismissed by a separate order, hence, there is good and sufficient cause for restoration of the writ petition and also for condonation of delay in moving the restoration application.