JUDGMENT 1. - This is a matter under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate by his order dated December 28, 1970 dismissed a police report on the ground that the property in dispute was joint and there was no apprehension of a breach of the peace. An application by way of revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judg, Jhunjhunu and on March 5, 1971 he dismissed the revision-application as he says, after examining the file. Aggrieved by this order Vidhya Dhar opposite party No. 1 has come up in revision before me. 2. Mr. Tikku's first argument is that the learned Sessions Judge had fixed this case for the 5th of April, 1971. No party appeared on the 5.3.1971. Opposite party No.2 Gauri Shanker's counsel was also under the impression that the case was fixed for 5th April, 1971. This is borne out by his application for a certified copy. That neither party No. 1 nor party No.2 appeared on the 5th March,1971, nor the file was available before the Session Judge & still the learned Sessions Judge says that he examined the file. Mr. Tikku's grievance is that he could not have examined the file when it was not before him. 3. Mr. Soral urges that what is being assailed is the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 28th December, 1970 and this Court may examine it. 4. This is not an extraordinary case where I shall enter into the detailed arguments in regard to this matter, for I am satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in taking up the case of March 5,1971 when the case was fixed for April 5, 1971 and that is the reason why these parties, who are keenly pursuing the dispute, were both absent & he dismissed the revision application because none was present before him. There was bonafide wrong impression about the date fixed. The certified copy of the application moved on behalf of the opposite party No.2 by Shri B.D. saxena is kept on the record to establish that he was also under the impression that the date of hearing was April 5, 1971 and not March 5, 1971. It is factually incorrect for the learned Sessions Judge to say that he examined the file which had not arrived in his Court on March 5, 1971. 5. It is factually incorrect for the learned Sessions Judge to say that he examined the file which had not arrived in his Court on March 5, 1971. 5. The order dated the 5th March, 1971 of the learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, set aside and he is directed so decide the revision-application on merits remembering the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Amar Chand Agarwala v. Shanti Bose and another, AIR 1973 SC 799 . 6. With these observations, this revision-application is allowed. *******