JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

(Application Nos. 80656 & 80654 of 2020)

1. The applications seek recall of the order dated 05.07.2019 whereby the revision was dismissed in default, as well as conondation of delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 05.07.2019.

2. It has been stated in the affidavits filed in support of the applications that clerk of the counsel for the revisionist had inadvertently omitted to mark the case in the cause list and, therefore, the revisionist’s counsel could not appear when the case was taken up and the revision was dismissed for non-prosecution. As the counsel was not aware about the listing of the case, the fact of its dismissal could not be known to him, which has resulted in a delay in filing application for recall of the order.

3. Cause shown in the affidavits for delay in filing the recall application as well as for non-appearance of the counsel for the revisionist is sufficient. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed.

4. The revision is restored to its original number.

(Order on Revision)

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A. I for the State a