Raj Kishore Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Ors

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's rejection of the appellant's writ petition for non-prosecution and subsequent restoration application was hyper-technical and unjustified. The Court emphasized that the appellant had engaged two counsels, one of whom was elevated to the bench and the other was unwell, which constituted sufficient cause for their absence. The Court directed that the restoration application should have been allowed, enabling the case to be heard on merits, given its long-standing nature since 1988.