- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that when the notice was issued to the petitioner-Management, in C.W.J.C. No.772 of 1996 (R), the Management appeared by filing Vakalatnama on 05.11.1997 along with counter affidavit but the same could not be placed on record when the case was listed for hearing as a result of which the case was disposed of vide judgment dated 01.03.2004, without taking into account the averments made in the counter affidavit and also without hearing the counsel for the respondent-petitioner, as his name was not appearing in the daily cause list and as such he had no occasion to appear, when the case was listed for hearing and on account of this, the judgment dated 01.03.2004 has been sought to be reviewed.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that it is admitted position that the counter affidavit as well as Vakalatnama, filed on behalf of the respondent-petitioner could not be placed on record. It does further appear that the name of the counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner was also not appearing in the daily cause list and, therefore, he could not be heard in the matter and at the same time the stand taken by the respondent-petitioner in his counter affidavit could not be taken into consideration and as such the judgment passed by this Court on 01.03.2004 in C.W.J.C. No.772 of 1996 (R) is, hereby, set aside. Consequently, C.W.J.C. No.772 of 1996 (R) needs to heard a fresh.;