M. R. MALLICK, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the applicant/opposite party Sri Biswanath Mukherji praying for re-considering the order passed by this Court on 14th August, 1987 and to hear the revision petition again after considering the submissions made by both the parties. ( 2 ) A revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Sm. Sumana Das and Sri Milan Das, Cri. Rev, 1042/87 challenging the order, dated 20. 7. 1987 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Sadar, Howrah in M. P. No. 1217/84 (M. C. No. 385/ 84) by which the learned Magistrate passed the final order in a proceeding under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 3 ) THIS court by the order, dated 14. 8. 1987 having found some irregularities in the impugned order set it aside and directed the learned Executive Magistrate to re-hear, the matter in the light of the directions made by this court and this order which is challenged by the opposite party to the revision petition by filing this application. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the applicant/opposite party that the order, dated 14. 8. 87 has been passed by this court without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, that in the circumstances the applicant having been prejudiced prays for reviewing the order so that this court may hear the revision application on giving opportunity of hearing to him also. ( 5 ) THE revision petitioners have opposed this application, contending that this court has got no power to, review its own order and that the present opposite party or is merely an informant on the basis of which information the learned Executive Magistrate drew up a proceeding under Section 133 Cr. P. Code an (I issued Show Cause Notice on the same and that he has no locus, standi in the proceeding under Section 188 Cr. P. Code and at the instance of this informant this court should not set aside the order dated; 14. 8. 1987 which was passed considering all aspects of the case. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the applicant-opposite party it, is submitted that this Court can set aside, its order to afford opportunity to the opposite party to have his say when the order has been passed behind his back. 8. 1987 which was passed considering all aspects of the case. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the applicant-opposite party it, is submitted that this Court can set aside, its order to afford opportunity to the opposite party to have his say when the order has been passed behind his back. A decision of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1156 (M. N. Sastri vs. S. S. Satyanarayan) has been cited. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the revision petitioners the Supreme Court decision of 1981 Criminal Law Journal 206 has been cited to submit that the High Court can only correct clerical and arithmetical errors; except correcting such errors it has no power of reviewing its former order. On behalf of the revision petitioners a decision of Allahabad High Court reported in 44 Criminal Law Journal 1943 (Ramu vs. Murli Das) has been cited. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in the above decision that the proceeding under Sec. 133 Cr, P. Code are not initiated to, settle private disputes between two members of the public and that they have not originated by the filing of complaint or something of that kind and that any person can give the Magistrate information of the existence of any state of affairs, but when the Magistrate acts on that information, he is acting suo motu and the person who gives the information has no right in the matter and he is not a person who may be described as a party to the proceeding. ( 8 ) ON considering the decision of Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 1156 cited before me I am of the view that if this court passes an order without hearing a party who is a party to the original proceeding and who is seriously affected by ' the order passed by this court such an order can be re-considered by this court after giving such party an opportunity of hearing. But in this particular case the present applicant who is the opposite party, to the revision petition cannot be treated as a party to the proceeding because in a proceeding under Sec. 133 Cr. P. Code the applicant moving the court of the learned Executive Magistrate to draw up proceeding under Sec. 133 Cr. P. Code is not party to the proceeding. P. Code the applicant moving the court of the learned Executive Magistrate to draw up proceeding under Sec. 133 Cr. P. Code is not party to the proceeding. It is gathered from the application filed by the present opposite party that he filed a complaint before the local thana complaining about the public nuisance and the 1ocal thana forwarded the said application to the learned Executive Magistrate and the Ld. Executive Magistrate initiated the proceeding. Therefore in this case the present applicant who intends to review the order passed by this court is neither complainant filing a criminal complaint against any body nor petitioner before the court of the learned Executive Magistrate. He was merely an informant. Not being a party to the proceeding pending before the Learned Executive Magistrate he has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by this court directing the learned Executive Magistrate to reconsider the case in all the aspects and in the light of the observations made by this court. The said order does not seriously prejudice even the informant because the learned Magistrate has still the discretion to take any further action on the proceeding initiated on the basis of the information made by the present applicant. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances I do not find any merits in the application filed by the present opposite party. I am unable to reconsider my order passed on 14. 8. 87 because this court cannot review its own order. ( 10 ) THE application filed by the opposite party on 11. 9. 87 for review is, hereby, dismissed. ( 11 ) LET the order be communicated to the learned Executive Magistrate at once. Application dismissed.