(1) LEAVE granted. (2) WE have heard learned counsel for Respondent 1 who is the only contesting respondent in these proceedings. Respondents 2 and 3 are deemed to have been served on expiry of 30 days from the date of issuance of notice, as seen from office report of 5/5/1998/21/5/1998. (3) IN our view, in the writ petition when the dismissal order passed by Respondent 1 was challenged he can be treated to be the contesting party. (4) THE impugned order is the one by which the High Court refused to restore the writ petition which was dismissed for default. It appears that the petition filed by the appellant before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 33529 of 1992 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16/2/1993. The order read as under: "LIST has been revised. Nobody is present to press this petition. It is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution." (5) NOW it transpires that in the cause list of the relevant date the names of the parties were not shown and that was the reason why learned counsel for the appellant could not remain present. The appellant came to know about the dismissal of his petition for default on 4/7/1995 and then the petition for restoration was filed. The impugned order states that the restoration application is highly belated and the application for condonation of delay in moving it has already been rejected by the order of date passed on the delay condonation application. On merits also the cause for default in prosecution of the petition, which led to its dismissal, is not sufficient. (6) IN our view, once in affidavit supporting the restoration application it is stated that the appellant came to know about the dismissal of his petition for default of appearance only on 4/7/1995 and once restoration application was moved in 2 days thereafter it is difficult to appreciate how it can be said that the restoration application was highly belated. It is also difficult to appreciate how it can be observed that on merits the cause for default in prosecution of the petition, which led to the dismissal of the writ petition, is not sufficient, when the cause list itself showed that the names of the parties were not mentioned and only the name of the counsel was mentioned. Thus counsel may not get information about posting of the case. Thus counsel may not get information about posting of the case. The counsel may have a number of matters on the date in question. Naturally he may not know that the particular case was posted for hearing on that day unless names of the parties are also shown in the cause list. Consequently the reasoning adopted by the High Court for passing the impugned order cannot be sustained. It has also to be kept in view that the contesting respondent opposing the restoration application did not file any counter-affidavit to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the restoration application. (7) FOR all these reasons, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The dismissal of Writ Petition No. 33529 of 1992 is also set aside and the said writ petition is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to proceed with the same in accordance with law after issuing notices to the parties concerned and decide the writ petition on merits. (8) AS the remanded proceedings are of the year 1992 it will be open to the appellant to request Honble the Chief Justice of the High Court to get the matter fixed at the earliest. (9) NO costs.