2 It often happens that sometimes a case is number numbered by the Counsel or his clerk in the cause list, and hence, the Counsel does number appear.
1323/2004 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
In these circumstances, the judgment was passed.
875 of 2006 The Appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
1323 OF 2004 VISHNU AGARWAL Appellant s VERSUS STATE OF U.P. ANR.
1323 of 2004 The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Hence, the High Court recalled the order dated 2.9.2003 and directed the case to be listed for fresh hearing.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 29.1.2004 in Criminal Revision No.
875 OF 2006 O R D E R Criminal Appeal No.
This is a human mistake and can happen to anyone.
Appeal No.
Appeal No.
Subsequently, an application was moved for recall of the Order dated 2.9.2003 alleging that the case was shown in the companyputer list and number in the main list of the High Court, and hence, the learned Counsel for the Revisionist had number numbered the case and hence he did number appear.
Respondent s WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
