Judgment B.N.Sinha, J. 1. This application on behalf of opposite parties have been filed for recalling the order dated 20-5-87 passed by a Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 735 of 1983 by which the revision application has been allowed. It may be mentioned that opposite party No.1 is the wife of the opposite party No.2, who appears in person in this case. 2. The petitioners before this Court filed Criminal Revision No. 735 of 1983 for quashing the order dated 16-8-1983 passed by Shri Bankey Bihari Prasad, Executive Magistrate, Sadar Gaya in Miscellaneous Case No. 837/75, a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred as the Code) by which the learned Magistrate on the application file by the opposite parties restored the proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code which bad been dropped by him on 22-1-1983 on the ground of non-existence of breach of peace. This Criminal Revisions was admitted on 21-9-1983 and thereafter it appears that it was listed for hearing on several dates and ultimately it was disposed of by a Single Judge Bench of this Court by order dated 20-5-1987 which runs as follows: "Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Opposite parties. Learned Counsel for the Opposite parties concedes to the application and he has nothing to say. The impugned order is set aside and the application is allowed." Thereafter the present petition has been filed on behalf of opposite party for recalling the above order on the ground that in Criminal Revision, the opposite party had not engaged any Advocate as their counsel in this case and opposite parties filed counter affidavit in the criminal revision and opposite party No.2 used to appear in person, which is also evident from the cause list of 7th January, 1987, 9th January, 1987 and 12th January, 1987. But in the cause list of 20-5-1987 it was not shown that the opposite parties was appearing in person; and that the cause list of that day though mentions the name of opposite party No.2 but it omitted to mention that he was appearing in person; but it appears from the order dated 20-5-1987 that a counsel appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and conceded to the application and said that he has nothing to say; and this was due to "dextrous and deceitful tricks" played by the petitioners and thus they succeeded in getting order in their favour. 3. On these grounds it has been submitted by the opposite parties, who appeared in person, that the said order dated 20-5-87 was passed by mistake, due to mistake in the cause list and "dextrous and deceitful tricks" of the petitioners without giving an opportunity to the opposite parties of being heard and, therefore, it is fit to be recalled and proper order be passed after hearing both the parties. This petitions by the opposite parties for recalling the impugned order and for passing order after hearing both the parties was listed for hearing before the same Bench which has passed the impugned order but the said Bench ordered that it may be placed before any other Bench. Thus, this has come before me for hearing and disposal. 4. Sri Lalit Kishbore, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently opposed the prayer of the opposite parties and has submitted that once a final order is passed by the Court it cannot be reviewed. He has placed reliance on Sec. 362 of the Code which reads as follows: "362 Court not to alter judgment - Save as otherwise provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error." In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on Sankatha Singh and another V/s. The State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Orissa V/s. Ram Chander Agrawal etc. 5 In these two cases referring to sec. 5 In these two cases referring to sec. 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter called as the old Code) it has been held that judgment or final order once signed ,by the Court it cannot be reviewed. Sec. 362 of the Code contains similar provision as under Sec. 369 of the old Code. But the facts of these cases were quite different as compared to the present case. In none of these case being relied upon by the learned Counsel for - the petitioners, there was any mistake in the printing in the cause list with regard to either the name of the parties or name of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. In the present case the prayer for recall of the order is on the ground that it was passed due to mistake due to dextrous and deceitful tricks practised by the other side. In such a situation for the ends of justice, I feel that the order can be recalled under Sec. 482 of the Code. I am fortified in my view by a Bench decision of Calcutta High Court reported in Patel Bhagubhai Ranchhodas V/s. Bai Arvinda in which it has been held as follows:- "It is not the intention of the Procedure Codes that they should encourage the hindering of justice and all procedure is intended to help justice. I should think that the view taken by the Magistrate is a correct one, and that even the Criminal Courts have power to ignore their orders passed either under a mistake or by fraud seers to me to be one which is justified.......". 6. Moreover the application in revision has been filed under the provision s of Secs. 397 and 401 of the Code. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 401 of the Code reads as follows: "401(2). No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence." Thus, it is clear that no order under this section by the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction can be passed to the prejudice of any person unless he had any opportunity of being heard either personally or through an Advocate. In the present case, I have examined the cause list (If 7th January, 1987, 9th January, 1987 and 12th January, 1987 from which it appears that the opposite party has not engaged any Advocate as their counsel in the instant criminal revision and opposite party No.2 was appearing in person. The cause list for these three days have shown the case as follows: Criminal Revision 735/83-with C.A. Krishna Pd.-Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Sinha-Mr. Krishna Pd. Sinha (In Person) This case on these three days were listed for hearing before another Single Judge Bench; On 20-5- 1987 the case was listed for hearing but, the list has omitted to mention that opposite party No.2 was appearing in person for the Opposite parties. The cause list of that day has shown the case as follows: Criminal Revision 735/83-with C.A. with office not Krishan Pd.-Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh-Mr. Krishna Pd. Sinha Undisputedly the opposite party has not engaged any Advocate to appear on their behalf. But, the impugned order mentions. that learned Counsel for the opposite parties "concedes to the application and he has nothing to say". This is apparently a mistake. The impugned order was passed to the prejudice of the opposite parties without the opposite parties getting an opportunity of being heard, which is unjust and against the provisions of law. 7. I am buttressed in my view by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri V/s. S. S. Satyanarayan in a Criminal Appeal against an order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a similar situation. Andhra High Court disposing of a case under Secs. 435 and 438 of the Old Code had held as follows: "It is true that the case has been disposed of without hearing the counsel for the Respondent as it could not appear at the time of the hearing because his name was not printed in the cause list. But, this is a revision case where the Respondent is not entitled to be heard as of right. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not think any review of the order already passed if necessary." The Supreme Court has held that this view taken by the Andhra High Court is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice which was applicable to the proceedings before the High Court. 8. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not think any review of the order already passed if necessary." The Supreme Court has held that this view taken by the Andhra High Court is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice which was applicable to the proceedings before the High Court. 8. In a similar situation in a Criminal Appeal where the name of the Advocate for the parties was not shown in the cause list and the appeal was heard ex-parte ending in conviction of the party and the petition for re-hearing was dismissed by the High Court, the Supreme Court held in Swarth Mahto and another V/s. Dharmdeo Narain Singh, as follows: "If the name of the Advocate who appears in the case is not shown, there would be good reason to think that he had no notice of the case being posted for hearing. Therefore, when an application is later made by the parties, who were not heard, it would be an exercise of sound discretion if an opportunity is given to the party who is not heard." In that case the name of the counsel appearing in the Criminal Appeal was omitted from the daily cause list through inadvertance of the office of the High Court with the result that the counsel could not know about the appeal having been posted for hearing and the appeal was dismissed .without he being heard. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramballabh Jha V/s. The State of Bihar. It has been in this case held that the order dismissing the appeal was judgment delivered without an opportunity being given to the appellant or his Advocate within the meaning of Sec. 421 of the Old Code and was liable to be set aside and the appeal was ordered to be re-heard in exercise of inherent powers under Sec. 561A of the Old Code. 9 On consideration of the relevant provisions of the Code and in view of the Authorities referred to above, it must be held that the final order of the Court dated 20-5-1987 was passed without an opportunity being given to the opposite parties and hence it is fit to be set aside. 9 On consideration of the relevant provisions of the Code and in view of the Authorities referred to above, it must be held that the final order of the Court dated 20-5-1987 was passed without an opportunity being given to the opposite parties and hence it is fit to be set aside. For the ends of justice under the inherent powers of the Court under Sec. 482 of the Code the prayer is accordingly allowed. The revision is accordingly put down for rehearing and it must come in due course and a notice regarding the date fixed for re-hearing of the revision be sent to the opposite party.