AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 209 wordsSanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.
This petition has been filed for restoration of W.P.S No.3113/2012 to its original file which was dismissed for non prosecution by order dated 30.07.2021.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the W.P.S was listed on 22.07.2019 and 30.07.2019 respectively and he submits that due to inadvertence on the aforesaid dates on repeated calls on the aforesaid two dates due to non-appearance of the learned counsel the same was dismissed. He further submits that for the fault of the learned counsel, the petitioner may not suffer.
Learned counsel for the State has got no objection if the W.P.S is restored to its original file.
In view of the above facts and considering that the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to mark the case and did not appear twice before the Court due to non-marking of cause list and as sufficient reasons have been made out for restoration of W.P.S. No.3113/2012, the prayer made in the instant C.M.P is allowed.
The instant C.M.P stands disposed of.
Let W.P.S. No.3113/2012 be restored to its original file.