JUDGMENT 1. Adjournment has been sought by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who has applied for review of an order passed by the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, (the then Chief Justice) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Sinha. 2. Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Sinha is still available as a Judge of this Court. 3. Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: Order XLVII Rule 5. Application for review in Court consisting of two or more Judges.- Where the Judge or Judges, or any one of the Judges, who passed the decree or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue attached to the Court at the time when the application for a review is presented, and is not or are not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, such Judge or Judges or any of them shall hear the application, and no other Judge or Judges of the Court shall hear the same. 4. A reading of the aforesaid Rule, which is both in positive as well as negative terms, indicates that there is a legislative mandate that the review matter should not be heard by any other Judge, unless the Judge who decided the case, is not available as a Judge of that Court. 5. Accordingly, the matter will have to be listed before a Bench, of which Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Sinha will necessarily have to be a member. 6. It is well settled that even if the Code of Civil Procedure does not in terms apply to the writ jurisdiction, but the principles laid down therein are applicable. 7. There is good reason behind the aforesaid legislative mandate. The reason is that the Judge or Judges, who gave the decision under review, would be well aware about what had transpired during the original hearing, which may often be necessary for deciding the review, and would often be beneficial in decision or speedier decision of the review petition. 8. 7. There is good reason behind the aforesaid legislative mandate. The reason is that the Judge or Judges, who gave the decision under review, would be well aware about what had transpired during the original hearing, which may often be necessary for deciding the review, and would often be beneficial in decision or speedier decision of the review petition. 8. While discussing this issue, we consider it appropriate to further notice another related issue frequently arising, namely whether an application for restoration of a case which has been dismissed for default should be tied up with the Judge or Judges or such of those Judges who had dismissed the case for default, who are still available as Judges of the same Court. 9. We are of the considered opinion, having regard to the larger interest of the Institution as well as the prevailing practice in most High Courts, that such matters must always remain tied up. The' reason for this view is that if such (resoration) matters are not tied up with that Bench, it may result in Bench hunting on part of unscrupulous litigants by getting the cases dismissed for default before an unfavourable Bench and applying for restoration and consequent hearing, after a-favourable change in roster. 10. The listing section should therefore not list such matters before random Benches, but should list such cases before the appropriate Benches, if necessary after obtaining nomination from the Chief Justice. 11. We accordingly direct this matter to be listed after obtaining necessary nomination of the Bench from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. We also direct that a copy of this order be circulated to the Stamp Reporter and the Listing Section of this Court immediately for keeping in mind the above observations while listing such matters.