JUDGMENT : Ryves, J. This is an application in revision to set aside an order absolute passed by a Magistrate under section 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings originally arose out of a Criminal Case brought by one Hulas Rai, patwari, against certain persons charging them with various offences. At the same time Hulas Rai, filed a petition asking for an order under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dispute between the parties concerned a strip of land. The Magistrate while holding that the charge brought against the accused by Hulas Rai was in the main false, nevertheless convicted them of the offence of mischief in that they removed some earth from a chabutra belonging to Hulas Rai. This conviction was upheld by this Court. At the same time the Magistrate disposed of the proceedings initiated under section 133 by an order, which was set aside in revision by this Court, on the ground that the Magistrate had not complied with the provisions of section 135, inasmuch as the application for the appointment of a jury had been refused. This Court therefore sent back the proceedings to be disposed of according to law. On the case coming before the same Magistrate again the opposite party showed cause but did not press for the appointment of a jury. Thereupon, the court asked the opposite party to produce their evidence. They declined to do so. Thereupon, without any further evidence being recorded, the Magistrate made his order, under section 133, absolute under section 140. From this order this application for revision is made and it is argued that the terms of section 137 are imperative, namely, that when cause has been shown the Magistrate must take evidence in the matter as in a summons case and a reference to section 244 indicates that in such a case the complainant first has to produce evidence. It is urged that in a proceeding under section 133 before any order can be passed under section 140, a complainant, that is, the party who has set the law in motion, has to produce evidence and that the opposite party is not bound to produce evidence until this has been done. Reliance is placed on the case of Hingan v. King-Emperor, [1909] 6 A.L.J.R., 685. Reliance is placed on the case of Hingan v. King-Emperor, [1909] 6 A.L.J.R., 685. In my opinion, it is quite clear that the procedure of the court below was not justified in law. But, at the same time, having regard to the fact that the one question which the court ought to have had established by evidence, before calling on the other side to produce their rebutting evidence, was a question about which both parties have already given evidence, given in the criminal proceeding already referred to, and in which the very court now seized of the case had come to a decision, which decision was upheld by the High Court Although, I think, the procedure of the Magistrate was irregular, it would be really waste of time to send the case back. Under these circumstances I decline to interfere, as substantial justice has undoubtedly been done. I reject this application.