Binod Kumar Roy and D. R. Chaudhary, JJ. - (1.) Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs. Mridul Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Srt Shambhu Chopra learned counsel for the writ petitioners of C. M. W. P. No. 10281 of 1999, informs us that since his name was printed incorrectly as B. Chopra in the Court's daily cause list dated 15.5.1999 and hence he could not bona fide mark the daily cause list and, thus, the default was not wilful. He also takes up a ground that in misprinting his name in the daily cause list, the mistake was of the Court's office and, thus, it will be in the interest of justice to restore back the writ petition to its original file and number under our inherent powers. Mrs. Mridul Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents raises a technical objection that since this application has been filed for the restoration of the Restoration Application dated 15.3.2000. the prayer made by Sri Chopra may not be allowed.
(2.) Admittedly, the name of Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioners, was misprinted as B. Chopra. It is well-known that a counsel normally marks his cases printed in the daily cause list with reference to his name. In not printing the name of Sri Shambhu Chopra as counsel for the petitioners in the daily cause list, the office has committed a mistake. Actus Curie Neminem Gravabit (acts of the Court prejudices none) is a well known maxim. Consequently, for the fault of the office neither Sri Chopra or the petitioners should suffer.
(3.) The prayer made in this Restoration Application ts not only for restoration of the Restoration Application dated 15.3.2000, but also of the writ case both.;