JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - The Petitioners were the members of the second party and the opposite party was the sale first party member in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 366 of 1980 in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code). The first party had filed her written statement and the second party took some adjournments for filing written statement and the matter-stood posted to 15-6-1981. That was a holiday and the case was called on the next day. The Petitioners were found to be absent on calls and the learned Executive Magistrate recorded the evidence of two witnesses for the opposite party and passed an order in her favour u/s 14(6) of the Code. The Petitioners made an application for vacating that order on the ground of illness at Sadhu Das, one of the members of the second party. The learned Executive Magistrate, on a consideration of this application and taking into consideration the facts that the date fixed was a holiday and it was for filing of the written statement and not for hearing and that on the day following, the matter had been taken up for hearing ex parte and the illness of one of the members of the second any which had not been controverted by the other side, vacated the order passed on 16-6-1981 declaring the opposite party to be in possession of the land in dispute and directed both the parties to file the written statement and to come prepared for evidence posting the case to 17-10-1981. The opposite party came up in revision and the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate reviving the case and vacating his previous ex parte order on the ground that the learned Magistrate could not legally set at naught his previous order as it was in contravention of the provisions of Section 366 of the Code. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge which is assailed in this revision. 2. At the stage of hearing, Mr. Devananda Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has submitted that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be wrong. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge which is assailed in this revision. 2. At the stage of hearing, Mr. Devananda Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has submitted that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be wrong. He has, however, made an application u/s 482 of the Code and has submitted that in order to prevent an abuse of the process of the court, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 16-6-1981 should be set aside by this Court and an opportunity, should be afforded to the Petitioners, against whom an ex-parte order had been passed for no fault of theirs especially when they had been able to satisfy the learned Magistrate that for circumstances beyond their control they could not take steps on 16-6-1981. A rejoinder has been filed and Mr. A.K. Mohapatra has seriously objected to this application being allowed. 3. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised very sparingly and in exceptional cases. As has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court, or for securing the ends of justice, interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, the High Court may exercise its power u/s 482 of the Code. 4. In the instant case, the fact remains that the learned Executive Magistrate had been satisfied about the ground of absence of the Petitioners in his court on 16-6-1981 on which day the case was taken up ex parte although it had been fixed on the previous day which was a holiday. I notice from the record of the learned Magistrate that on 5-5-1981, the proceeding stood posted to 26-5-1981 for filing of the written statement by the Petitioners on an application made by them. On 26-5-1981, the learned Magistrate had passed the following order: Both the parties present. 2nd party files time petition. Time is allowed. The case is posted to 15-6-1981. It is noticed from the application made on 26-5-1981 by the Petitioners that they had applied for time to file their written statement. This application had thus been allowed on 26-5-1981. On 26-5-1981, the learned Magistrate had passed the following order: Both the parties present. 2nd party files time petition. Time is allowed. The case is posted to 15-6-1981. It is noticed from the application made on 26-5-1981 by the Petitioners that they had applied for time to file their written statement. This application had thus been allowed on 26-5-1981. Although the' purpose for which the matter stood posted to 15-6-1981 had not been mentioned in the order quoted above, as the application for an adjournment for filing written statement put in by the Petitioners had been allowed, it must be construed that the next date fixed was for filing of the written statement by the Petitioners. Thus the day on which the ex parte order was passed against the petitions after hearing the opposite party and examining her, witnesses was not a day fixed for hearing. This ground had also been taken before the learned Executive Magistrate when the Petitioners sought vacation of the order dated 16-6-1981 and was noticed by the learned Executive Magistrate. In view of these facts and circumstances, by taking up the hearing ex-parte, on a date fixed for filing of the written statement, serious prejudice had been caused to the Petitioners and to pass an order declaring possession in favour of the other side would, for the aforesaid reasons, amount to an abuse of the process of the court. In my view, it would be just and reasonable to vacate the order dated 16-6-1981 and in the interests of justice, afford an opportunity to the Petitioners to file their written statement and contest the case. 5. I thus find that this is a fit case where this Court should, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code, set at naught the order dated 16-6-1981 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. I would accordingly allow the application made u/s 482 of the Code, vacate the order dated 16-6-1981 and direct the learned Executive Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law from the stage prior to the date of passing of that order. 6. Before I close, I would like to keep on record some submission made by the learned Counsel for the opposite party. 6. Before I close, I would like to keep on record some submission made by the learned Counsel for the opposite party. It has been submitted before me that the opposite party, who is an old lady, has been suffering in a state of litigation for many years past, she has got delivery of possession of the land from the civil court and the same land is the subject-matter of dispute. It would be open to the opposite party to raise these contentions before the learned Executive Magistrate who may consider them for what they are worth. I do hope, the learned Magistrate should do well to dispose of the proceeding within three months hence. The parties to the proceeding are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on the 22nd December, 1982. The learned Counsel for both the sides have undertaken to inform about this direction made by this Court. This direction has been given by me so that the matter will not be delayed by the issue of notices by the learned Executive Magistrate to both the parties for their appearance m his court. 7. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of. Final Result : Allowed