- (1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad - Setting aside the order dated 22. 6. 1987 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
(2.) THE facts of this case lie in a very short compass. A proceeding u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) was pending between the parties. It was decided exparte against the Petitioner on 11. 1. 1966. THE petitioner had moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 30th September, 1986 for setting aside the exparte order. It also transpires that he had also preferred a revision before Sessions Judge. This was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad on 14th April, 1987. In his judgment the learned Sessions Judge had directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the application dated 30th September, 1986 of the petitioner. THEreupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had disposed of this application dated 30th September, 1986. He had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not aware of the proceeding as process had not been served on him. Consequently he had set aside the order dated 1. 1. 1986 and asked the parties to produce their evidence. Aggrieved by this order dated 22. 8. 1987 the respondent had preferred a revision before Sessions Judge. THE learned Sessions Judge fiad passed the impugned order. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party. It has been argued that in the order dated 14. 4. 1987 the learned Sessions Judge had asked the Magistrate to decide the application dated 30th September 1986. In this circumstance the Magistrate was fully justified in deciding the application dated 30th September 1986.
(3.) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party that by rejecting the earlier revision the learned Sessions Judge had confirmed the order dated 1. 1. 1986 and therefore, it should not be set aside. A copy of the order of the Sessions Judge dated 14. 4. 1987 in Criminal Revision No. 203 of 1986 is on record. This shows that learned Sessions Judge had not confirmed the order dated 1. 1. 86. Nothing was said about the correctness of the order dated 1. 1. 1986. On the other hand Magistrate was directed to dispose of the application dated 30th September, 1986. Sub-Divisional Magistrate had disposed of the application in accordance with law and his conclusion that the opposite party was not served properly can not be said to be perverse or erroneous. In the teeth of the above facts the observa tion of the learned Sessions Judge that order dated 1. 1. 1986 was confirmed and learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to set aside the order is not correct on the facts appearing on record. I find that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate had acted within the scope of direction given by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 14. 4. 1987. There is no error in the order of learned Magistrate dated 22. 8. 1987.;