Short Note : A revision was preferred by the present applicants against the order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa. The revision was admitted and the parties were noticed for final hearing. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge pass an order dismissing the application for revision. On the face of the order impugned, it is apparent that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not at all apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and arbitrarily dismissed the revision without taking the trouble of considering the points involved even for name-sake. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has simply observed that on going through the order, he was of the opinion that no interference was called for. 2. In my opinion, this course should not have been adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with this revision. He should have at least applied his mind and given reasons for dismissing the revision application. There were various points arising for consideration and determination at the time of final hearing after notice to parties. It was brought to my notice that the question of jurisdiction to include in the final order such other property in respect of which there was no preliminary order was to be considered and determined after looking into the preliminary order and the final order. Various other aspects of the case were also to be dealt and determined. Thus, the order is absolutely illegal and results in miscarriage of justice. It is a fit case for quashing the order by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to send back the revision to the Additional Sessions Judge for a fresh decision according to law. 3. Since the order impugned made by the learned Additional Session Judge is no order in the eyes of law it is liable to be set aside by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the revision deserves to be remanded back for a fresh decision. In view of this, it is not necessary for me to deal with the question of maintainability of a second revision in the circumstances stated in the preceding paragraph. Petition allowed.