1. It appears that on 30th March, 1982 when C.R.P. No. 766 of 1981 preferred by the first respondent came to be heard by the learned single judge of the High Court, the advocate engaged on behalf of the appellant could not appear because he was engaged in another Court and it was only later, after the Court had closed for the summer vacation on 7th April, 1982, that he came to know that the revision application had already been heard and decided in favour of the first respondent. The learned advocate for the appellant, on coming to know what had happened made an application supported by his own affidavit for rehearing of the revision application. This application was rejected by the learned single judge of the High Court treating it as if it were a review application. The order rejecting the application for rehearing was made on 22nd June, 1982. The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.

2. Now it is obvious that the appellant could not appear at the hearing of the revision application preferred by the first respondent because the Advocate engaged by him was occupied in another Court and this fact was stated by the l