(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard learned counsel for Respondent 1 who is the only contesting respondent in these proceedings. Respondents 2 and 3 are deemed to have been served on expiry of 30 days from the date of issuance of notice, as seen from office report of 5/5/1998/21/5/1998.

(3) IN our view, in the writ petition when the dismissal order passed by Respondent 1 was challenged he can be treated to be the contesting party.

(4) THE impugned order is the one by which the High Court refused to restore the writ petition which was dismissed for default. It appears that the petition filed by the appellant before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 33529 of 1992 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16/2/1993. The order read as under:

"LIST has been revised. Nobody is present to press this petition. It is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution."

(5) NOW it transpires that in the cause list of the relevant date the names of the parties were not shown and that was the reason why learned counsel for the appellant could not remain present. The appellant came to know about the dismissal of his petition for default on 4/7/1995 and