S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 13. 12. 2000 in Rev. WP. MP. No. 33432 of 2000 dismissing the review petition wherein review of the order made by the learned single Judge dated 4. 8. 2000 in W. P No. 7895 of 1990 was sought. ( 2 ) IN the review petition, it was contended that when the writ petition was posted for final hearing on 4. 8. 2000, the name of Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent in the writ petition was not printed in the cause-list and on the other hand, the name of Sri K. Appalacharyulu was shown as if he is the counsel for the respondent in the writ petition and hence, the learned counsel Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy could not be present before the Court at the time of hearing and the Court, without giving any opportunity to the learned counsel or to the respondent, passed the order and therefore, the order made by the learned single Judge on 4. 8. 2000 was liable to be set aside and the writ petition heard afresh. The learned single Judge has dismissed the review petition by observing as under:"even accepting the statement of the learned counsel that because of the mistake on the part of the office in not printing the name of the counsel, the learned counsel was not present on 4. 8. 2000, it does not absolve the respondent from filing the counter. No counter is filed even as on today. However, the learned counsel for the respondent-bank, Mr. James representing Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy requests that some time may be granted to file counter. I am afraid that I cannot accept this request. The learned counsel was permitted to argue the matter without filing any further counter in the matter. The learned counsel expressed his inability to argue the matter without filing counter. " ( 3 ) WITH respect to the learned Judge and humility, we cannot fall in line with the above reasoning of the learned single Judge. It is an undisputed fact, fully supported by the cause list of the day produced before the Court, that the name of Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy was not shown as the counsel for the respondents when the case was listed for final hearing on4. 8. 2000. It is an undisputed fact, fully supported by the cause list of the day produced before the Court, that the name of Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy was not shown as the counsel for the respondents when the case was listed for final hearing on4. 8. 2000. It is also an admitted fact that the writ petition was disposed of on 4. 8. 2000 without hearing the learned counsel for the respondent. If this fact is not in dispute, only on that count, the order made on 4. 8. 2000 by the learned single Judge is liable to be reviewed and set aside and the writ petition should be heard afresh, if not for any other reason, but for the reason that the order made on 4. 8. 2000 is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is well settled that no adverse order could be passed against a person, without hearing such a person or his counsel, if such person is represented by a counsel. Merely because the respondent did not file the counter affidavit in the case, there was no justification for the Court to deny the hearing to the respondent. ( 4 ) IN the result, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 13. 12. 2000 in Review WP. MP. No. 33432 of 2000 as well as the order dated 4. 8. 2000 made in W. P No. 7895 of 1990 and direct that the writ petition shall stand restored to the file of the Court. The Registry is directed to post the writ petition for final hearing before the appropriate Court hearing 1990 writ petitions. No order as to costs.