- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18th October, 1984 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur setting aside the order dated 3-3-84 passed by S. D. M. Marihaun, by which he recalled the order dated 4-2-1984 and gave opportunity to the revisionist to adduce the evidence.
(2.) IT appears that on the police report S. D. M. passed a conditional order and in itiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr. P. C. The conditional order was personally served on opposite party No. 2 but was not personally served on the revisionists Brij Sen and Dharm Sen. Process-server reported that notices sent to revisionist were served through "heirs". As none of the opposite party appeared the S. D. M. made the conditional order absolute by order dated 4-2-84 directing the police to remove the nuisance. Thereafter the revisionist filed an application for recall of the ex-parte order on 18-2-84. The learned S. D. M. held that the notice was not per sonally served on the opposite parties and, therefore, it would be proper to give them opportunity to file objection. Felt ag grieved Sheo Mooral filed a revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the criminal Courts have got no power to review their orders even though it is ex-parte. He, therefore, allowed the revisions and set aside the order. Felt ag grieved the opposite parties have come up in revision. Despite the list being revised none appeared to press the revision nor any one appeared for the opposite party. On ear lier occasions the case was adjourned repeatedly at the instance of the revisionists and, therefore, it was directed that no further adjournment would be granted. The revision was directed to be listed peremptorily. Despite this direction none appeared to press this revision. An illness slip was sent by the learned counsel for the revisionist. In view of the earlier order the judgment was reserved after perusing the record with the help of the learned Additional Government Advo cate. Till now no attempt has been made by either side to advance any arguments. In my view the Additional Sessions Judge, after finding that notices were not personally served should have exercised his discretion in not interfering with the order. I find it a fit case to restore the order passed by the S. D. M. in giving opportunity to the revisionist to contest the case and in proceeding to decide the case on merits.
(3.) THE revision is allowed. THE im pugned order is set aside and the order passed by the S. D. M. is restored. Revision allowed. .;