ORDER Seshagiri Aiyar, J. 1. In this case, an application was made to me on 14th September 1915 while I was sitting in the Admission Court to while I was sitting in the Admission Court to admit a criminal revision petition and to release the accused on bail. I granted both the prayers. Immediately after and before the prayers. Immediately after and before the order was transcribe, it was brought to my notice that Sir William Ayling, J., had the matter before him some days back and that he dismissed the petition. This was not brought to my notice as it ought to have been when I assed orders. I am asked to treat the dismissal by Ayling, J., as one for default of appearance. One of the Vakils was present before the learned Judge and though he says he represented his inability to o on with the case as the papers were with the other Vakil, I see no reason to think that Aylin, J., did not deal with the petition on its merits. The decision in Ranga Row v. Emperor 16 Ind. Cas. 518 : 12 M.L.T. 350 : 23 M.L.J. 371 : 13 Cr.L.J. 710 : (1912) M.W.N. 982 shows that the High Court has no power to restore a petition once dismissed for default. It is argued that the decision does not preclude the filing of a fresh petition for the same relief. Although the principle of res judicata is not applicable to criminal cases, I think that on grounds of justice and equity, Courts should discourage the agitation of the same matter once again before another Judge. If the dismissed petition cannot be restored, there is stronger ground for holding that a new petition will not lie. There has been no considered decision on the question. The fact that notice was issued in Criminal Revision Case not an indication that the learned Judge came to the conclusion that such a petition can be entertained. Moreover, I think that in this case Ayling, J., must be deemed to have disposed of the case on the merits. I, therefore, refuse to admit the petition and to grant bail. 2. The petitions are dismissed.