JUDGMENT G. D. Dube, J. 1. The applicant has prayed in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 1.4.88 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Meerut in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. the order dated 18.8.90 passed by the aforesaid Magistrate under Section 126 of Code of Criminal Procedure and order dated 9th August, 1991 passed by First Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in revision preferred against the order dated 18.8.90. of the Magistrate. 2. The facts of the case are very brief. A petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the opposite party against the applicant. The applicant remained absent and it was decided exparte against him on 1.4.88. The applicant moved an application under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the exparte order stating that he was under the impression that as a lump sum was being made to the opposite party in pursuance of order of Court the case was going to be finished. Consequently he did not contest. He had prayed for setting aside the exparte order but the learned Magistrate after hearing this application rejected it. In the revision filed against the order of the learned Magistrate the same point were raised. The learned Judge after hearing the applicant rejected the revision and upheld the order of the learned Magistrate. 3. It has been urged that that applicant may be permitted to produce the evidence before the learned Magistrate in the main petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court cannot, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge passed in the revision petition. This will in another way amount to permit the applicant to take advantage of a second revision against the order of the First Additional Session Judge Meerut which is barred by the provision of Section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this respect observation of Supreme Court in R. K. Manchanda v. State of Kamataka, 1988(25) ACC P. 54 may be referred to. 4.I have gone through the impugned order. There is no error as to justify involving the inherent jurisdiction. The application is rejected. Appeal rejected.