ORDER
Rama Jois, J.
1. In this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 8 days in preferring the Appeal. By an order made by this Court on 22.1.1992 notice was directed to be issued. Accordingly notice has been served on the learned Counsel who had appeared for the respondent (Writ petitioner) in the Writ Petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the respondent, though served with the notice in the Writ Appeal, says that the notice should be issued to the respondent. This submission is untenable in view of Rule 32 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, regulating the Writ Appeals.
Rule 32 of the Rules reads:
“When notice is directed to be issued on any writ appeal, such notice may be served on the Advocate if any, who appeared for the respondent in the original proceedings in the High Court. In all other cases notice shall be issued to the respondent.”
According to the above Rule, when a notice is directed to be issued in the Writ Appeal, such notice may be served on the Advocate, if any, who appeared for the respondent, in the original proceeding ie., in the Writ Petition. Only in cases i.e., when all or any of the respondents were not represented in the Writ Petition the notice has to be issued to such respondents.
In view of the above Rule, no separate order of the Court is also necessary to serve the notice on the Counsel who appeared for opposite party in the Writ Petition. Therefore the Counsel for the respondent cannot insist that the appellant should take notice to the party. Once notice is served on the Counsel as provided under Rule 32 the Counsel is in duty bound to appear for the party. Therefore the request of the Counsel for the issue of notice to the respondent is rejected.
3. Learned Counsel submitted in many cases, when notice is ordered in Writ Appeals the Registry is insisting that in the absence of a specific order permitting the notice to be taken to the Advocate notice has to be taken to the party. If they have done so in any case, the concerned learned Counsel should have told the Registry that no such order was necessary in view of Rule 32. However, the Registry shall take a note of this order for guidance hereafter.
4. In view of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of the delay, the delay is condoned. Register the Appeal and post for admission.