RAJ KUMAR PATERIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of order dtd. 17/1/2023 passed in W.P. No.26250/2022 ( Raj Kumar Pateriya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) on the ground that when case was listed on 17/1/2023 in motion hearing S.No.63 (wrongly mentioned by the petitioner as 'mother hearing No.63') by the time counsel for the petitioner reached the Court, writ petition was dismissed finally without hearing or giving opportunity to the petitioner.

(2.) Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Singh and others Vs. Chiranjibi Lal and others, (2002) 3 SCC 609, wherein in para 8 it is held that in absence of Advocate for the petitioner, appeal can be dismissed for non prosecution. The High Court ought not to have considered the merits of the case to dismiss the second appeal.

(3.) Placing reliance on this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Singh (supra), it is submitted that this Court committed a mistake in deciding the petition in absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner.