ORDER S.D. Singh, J. - This is an application in revision against an order passed by the SDM, Derapur, district Kanpur, on 7-12-1964, under some provision of the. Code of Criminal Procedure which has not been indicated in the order itself. 2. The Magistrate passed an order u/s 113(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 19-10-1964, on the basis of the police report which was before him 6-11-1964 was fixed in the case to enable the present Applicants either to remove the unauthorised encroachments within the time fixed in the order or to appear before the SDM to show cause why the said encroachments might not be got removed through police. The Applicants appeared in the court on 6-11-1964, but the Magistrate was on leave on that date. On the next day, i.e., 17-11-1964 they filed their objection and 6-12-1964 was then fixed for evidence. But 6-12-1964 was Sunday, and the case was, therefore, taken up by the Magistrate on 7th December, but at some place outside his headquarter, and as the present Applicants were absent, an exparte order was passed against them requiring them to remove the encroachments within 15 days and directing the police to remove them if they were not so removed within the time allowed. 3. The Applicants went up in revision to the Additional District Magistrate (J). Their application having been dismissed by him, they have come in revision to this Court. 4. Having gone through the record and heard the parties, I find this to be a case, in which the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur, should have made a reference to this Court even on just a cursory look at the facts of the case. 5. The Applicants were required to appear before the Magistrate on 6-12-1964, and since that day was a Sunday, the case was taken up on 7th December. It was a case of extreme negligence on the part of the Magistrate to fix a case on a close day. Such a mistake could not have occurred if the Magistrate had been maintaining a case-diary for his court. At the time of fixing the date the Magistrate should have consulted his diary and seen whether or not 6th December was a working day. Such a mistake could not have occurred if the Magistrate had been maintaining a case-diary for his court. At the time of fixing the date the Magistrate should have consulted his diary and seen whether or not 6th December was a working day. But even if on account of some slip or lapse, the case was fixed for 6th December, the Magistrate should not have taken it up on 7th December. A fresh date should have been fixed, and communicated to the Applicants. The Magistrate took up the case on 7th December almost without jurisdiction. 6. Even if the Magistrate did take up the case on 7th December, he was expected to do so at his head-quarter and not any where else in his sub-division, of which the parties had no notice. Before the Additional District Magistrate the counsel for the opposite party pointed out that a list pf the cases was hung on the notice-board outside the court showing the places where the cases were to be taken up, and that the place where this case was to be taken up was quite near the village of the present Applicants. The Additional District Magistrate took this assertion on the part of the counsel for the opposite party at its face value. He did not verify this fact from the Applicants jar their counsel, nor did he try to ascertain whether any such list had in fact been hung up. Apart from this, the Applicants could not have notice of such a list, unless they were required under any law to have a look at the notice board every time they come to court. It was clearly the duty of the SDM or his office to bring to the notice of the parties in the cases which were fixed up for hearing before him that their cases would be taken up at such and such a place. The parties may be expected to appear before the Magistrate outside his headquarter only if they have notice of the place, and that too in good time before the date of hearing. The Magistrate should have also known that it was not the mere attendance of the parties which was enough for the hearing of the case. The parties may be expected to appear before the Magistrate outside his headquarter only if they have notice of the place, and that too in good time before the date of hearing. The Magistrate should have also known that it was not the mere attendance of the parties which was enough for the hearing of the case. The parties were entitled to be represented by their counsel, who may have other engagements on a particular date at the headquarter: and it may not be possible for them to adjust their cases and attend to a case outside the headquarter and that too at a short notice. It was not, therefore, quite proper for the Magistrate to take up the case on a date which was not fixed in the case and that too outside his headquarter, and without notice or information to the Applicants. 7. The Additional District Magistrate did realise that such practice on the part of the Magistrate causes hardship, but he excused the irregularity by saying that the practice is prevalent and that the list was hung on the notice board. It may be permissible for the Magistrate to hold his Court anywhere in his sub division, but certainly a practice which entitles him to take up a case anywhere outside his headquarter without previous notice to the parties or at short notice cannot be given the seal of approval and the sooner any such practice is given up, the better perhaps in the interest of the administration of justice. 8. The application in revision is allowed. The order passed by the SDM on 7-12-1964 is set aside. The SDM will fix a fresh date for the hearing of the case against the Applicants and that too at his headquarter and proceed with the case thereafter in accordance with, law.