JUDGMENT Honble Amitava Lala, J.—Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant contended that when the matter was placed as “unlisted” on 20th April, 2006, it was not known to him. Accordingly, the matter was dismissed. Therefore, the same is a good ground for the purpose of restoration of the writ petition. 2. Practice of this High Court is to make a computerized list of urgent matters in addition to main cause list which is usually called “unlisted”. It is not “unlisted” as such. It is being pasted on the Notice Board outside the Court room. Learned Advocate being regular practitioner of this Court cannot take such plea for restoration of the matter. He has to be well conversant with the practice of the Court. Therefore, the application stands dismissed. 3. No order is passed as to costs. 4. However, without prejudice to the aforesaid order, we want to make certain clarification with regard to nomenclature of such list and its circulation for the future. Court is made for the litigants, therefore, there should be utmost clarity in the nomenclature and placement of the matters in the list. Hence, there should be some laying down procedure easily understandable by the litigants in respect of printing and publication of such list. 5. Computerised list i.e. “unlisted” is virtually a supplementary or additional list. Therefore, similar nomenclature should be uniformly maintained to avoid the confusion. Court is concerned about fulfilment of principle of audi alteram partem. Therefore, minimum time schedule is to be maintained for printing and publication of such list so that everyone can become ready about hearing of such matters to fulfil the requirement of such placement. 6. According to us, normally such list will have to be printed, published, circulated in the Bar and pasted in the conspicuous place of the Court at least 24 hours before taking of the same by the Court. Publication of such list will not in any way supersede the discretion of the Court in case of necessity. We have observed that publication of the daily cause list is regularized and computerized list of miscellaneous matters is controlled but printing and publication of so called “unlisted” is unguided. It should not be device in the hands of the officers of the Court and the department. 7. However, Registry is directed to do the needful following the observations and order of the Court. It should not be device in the hands of the officers of the Court and the department. 7. However, Registry is directed to do the needful following the observations and order of the Court. Honble R.N. Misra, J.—I agree. ————