Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Keshav Lal in the following circumstances:

2. The applicant had filed a revision in this court. That application was listed for admission on the 17th of January, 1951. The order of Gupta J. on that date was in these words:

"Petitioner and his counsel absent despite service. There is no one to press this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine."

Thereupon, the present application was made on the same day by Keshav Lal in which it was pointed out that the case was listed in the list of Bapna J. The counsel therefore waited in the court in which Bapna J. was working in a Division Bench. Before, however, Bapna J. could be free from the Division Bench, the counsel was surprised to learn that the case had been sent to the court of Gupta J. The counsel then rushed to the court of Gupta J. but by then the revision had been dismissed by the order which has been set out above. Consequently, it was prayed that the revision be restored.

3. The matter came up before Gupta J. on the 24th of January, 1951. He has referred the question, whether a criminal revision dismissed for default, as in this case, should be restored, to a Division Bench and that is ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document