{1} DB Civil Special Appeal(W) NO.31/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.31/2009 IN S.B.CIVIL MISC. RESTORATION APPLN.NO.528/2008 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.0525/2008(DEFECT) DATE: 12.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. KOTHARI Mr. Suresh Pareek, for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, for the respondents. **** Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present special appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the application for restoration of the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 3. Submission of learned counsel for appellant is that the appellant was required to file certified copy of one order which was not filed along with the writ petition, resulting in passing of a per emptory order by the learned Single Judge. The appellant made available certified copy to his Counsel, {2} DB Civil Special Appeal(W) NO.31/09 but the same was not filed by him, therefore, due to per emptory order and negligence on the part of the learned counsel, the writ petition came to be dismissed. In these circumstances, it is clear that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant, therefore, the writ petition should have been restored accepting the reasons for not complying with the per emptory order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant to restore the writ petition. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. From the impugned order, it appears that the defects were pointed out by the Registry in the writ petition, defects were not removed, thereafter per emptory order was passed and time was granted to remove the defects, but the same were not removed in time. Defect was that certified copy of the document has not been filed. 7. As per submission of learned counsel for the appellant which was mentioned in the application for restoration of the writ {3} DB Civil Special Appeal(W) NO.31/09 petition also that certified copy of the order had already been made available by the appellant to his Counsel, but due to his negligence or inadvertence, the same could not be filed in time. In these circumstances, we find that there was sufficient cause for restoration of the writ petition. 8. Consequently, we allow the special appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2008 and restore S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.0525/2008(Defect) to its original number. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. (S.S. KOTHARI),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. /KKC/