Judgment SOBHAGMAL JAIN, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated July 26, 1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar. ( 2 ) THE grievance raised by counsel for the petitioner is that he was not given proper opportunity of hearing in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel has, in this connection, invited my attention to the order sheets dated May 22, 1989, June 26, 1989 and July 24, 1989. A perusal of these order sheets show that the petitioner Ram Pyara was present on all these dates although the non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 were not present. The order sheet dated July 24, 1989, further reveals that there is some over-writing with regard to the next date, fixed by the Court. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner took it as September 16, 1989, whereas the date as it now appears after correction was July 25, 1989. On July 26,1989, the case was adjourned to July 26, 1986. On July26, 1989, when the case was taken up the petitioner was not present and his counsel Shri Jaswant Singh, who appeared, pleaded no instructions. The case of the petitioner is that the change in the date from Sept. 16, 1989, tojuly25, 1989, must have been made after he had left the Court and he could not know the change made in his absence. In such circumstances, argues learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, should have fixed a longer date and informed the petitioner of the change, made in his absence. ( 3 ) IN my view there is force in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. I saw the order sheet dated July 7, 1989. There is overwriting on the date fixed next for the case An intensive look of the over-written date does support the version of the petitioner that the date originally fixed was Sept. 16, 1989. If so, the petitioner was very likely misled and could not participate in the hearing. In these circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is allowed; the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, dated July 26, 1989, is set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to re-hear the revision petition afresh. In these circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is allowed; the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, dated July 26, 1989, is set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to re-hear the revision petition afresh. The parties are directed to remain present in that Court on April 9! 1990. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-petitioners submits that civil proceedings in respect of the same subject matter have been adjudicated upon right upto the High Court and the same stand finally decided and therefore no useful purpose will be served in continuing the present proceedings. As the revision is still to be heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I refrain from making any comments on this. It shall be open to the non-petitioners to raise this point before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and file relevant documents in support of this plea. ( 6 ) A copy of this order along with the record of the case shall be sent to the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, immediately. Petition allowed.