HANS RAJ SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the petitioner wants the restoration of the main writ petition on the ground that the matter was on that day fixed on the Board of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Thakur. But on that day Hon'ble Mr. Justice Thakur could not attend the Court and, therefore, the petitioner's Advocate thought that the matter would not be taken up. However, the matter was taken up by a different Bench consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and myself and when it was called by the reconstituted Bench, the writ petition was dismissed for default as nobody was present.

(2.) The learned Advocate-General draws our attention to the provisions contained in the Explanation attached to Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code and contends that no such restoration application is maintainable. Section 141, C. P. C., says that:--

(3.) Considering the facts of the case, we find that there are sufficient grounds for restoring the writ petition, The same is, therefore, restored and be put on Board for admission on April 28, 1978.