ALI MOHD MIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SWP No. 718 of 1994 was dismissed in default and) for non -prosecution on 4.8.1994. This .is an application moved by the petitioner seeking restoration of the aforesaid dismissed writ petition to its original number. Objections have been filed by the respondents through Shri A. Kapoor.

(2.) THE only ground urged in support of the application is that the petitioner thought that writ petition was tied up, in the Bench of Honble Khan J and because on 4 Aug. 1994 his Lordship was holding the court at Srinagar, the petitioner got a bona -fide impression that the matter would not be listed before any other Bench, it being tied up tot the particular Bench. The petitioner submits that the matter however, came to be listed on the Board of other Bench, Gupta J and because the petitioner could not appear in the court because of the aforesaid impression that he carried, the writ petition was dismissed in default of appearance, The second ground urged in support of the application is that there is long standing practice in this court that the causes are not dismissed in default of non -appearance and that because of long standing practice, this case ought to not have been dismissed.

(3.) MR . Kapoor. learned AAG has controverted both the submissions of the petitioner. According to him, there was no basis whatsoever for the petitioner to be under any impression that the matter was tied up to the particular Bench because the matter in fact was not tied up to any particular Bench. According to Mr. Kapoor, the petitioner ought to have known that only part heard matters are as -signed to a particular Bench or considered tied up. The present case was never part heard before the particular Bench nor was it assigned and therefore, the petitioner was not right in being under the impression of its being tied up to a particular Bench. Mr. Kapoors second submission is that there is neither any practice in this court nor any rule which lays down that a matter should not be dismissed in default of appearance on the first day of absence or that there is any requirement either originating from the practice or from the rule which enjoins upon the court to wait for an absent party for a further date.