JUDGMENT P. Dayal, J. - This revision has been filed for directing the trial court, namely, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad to allow the revisionists to lead evidence in their defence in S.T. No. 394 of 1984 before concluding the Trial. 2. The facts as revealed in the revision are that after the statements of the revisionists were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code they moved application on 30th October, 1985 for summoning two defence witnesses. That application was allowed. They furnished the processes also for the same. Subsequently, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge passed an order dated 7th November, 1985 that there was no need of summoning those witnesses as their evidence was not necessary for defence purposes. With those observations the application of the revisionists was rejected on 7th November 1985. The revisionists moved another application dated 18th November 1985 which too was rejected on that date by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad. 3. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge should have given a reasonable opportunity to the revisionists to adduce his evidence in defence and after their application was allowed for examining those witnesses that order should not have been recalled. It is also evident that the processes were not revised by the office. The learned trial court should have directed the office to issue the process. It was in the discretion of the learned trial court to burden the revisionists with the costs of the defence witnesses but it was not justified to have fagged their defence evidence. However if the court was of the view that the revisionists were trying to delay the proceeding of the case then alone there could be any justification for disallowing them from adducing their defence evidence. As such without keeping the revision pending. I allow it straightaway and direct the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad to summon the two defence witnesses for whom the processes have already been furnished, and to examine them in defence of the revisionists and thereafter to conclude the trial. In case the trial court considers that proper process have not been furnished it can order the revisionists to furnish further processes or costs or states. 4. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the revisionists on payment of necessary charges by tomorrow if possible.