This revision petition has been preferred praying for recalling of the judg­ment and order dated 7.9 93 passed in Criminal Revision No. 224 of 1987. 2. The matter was pending before this Court since 1987 and this Court by order dated 7.9.93 disposed of the matter under its revisional jurisdiction. Under section 403 CrPC option has been provided to the revisional Court. Saction 433 CrPC reads as follows : "403. Option of Court to hear parties-Save as otherwise expressly provi­ded by this Code, no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader, before any Court exercising its powers of revision; but the Court may, if thinks fit when exercising such powers, hear any party either personally or by pleader." 3. Recall of the judgment dated 7.9.93 on the ground of not giving opportunity to the counsel of the petitioners as a matter of right is not sust­ainable, as the rovisional jurisdiction conferred on Court, is dicretionary. This Court after going through the papers decided the matter and the order of the Executive Magistrate dated 27.1.86 has been restored by setting aside the judgment and order dated 4.4.87 passed by the Sessions Judge in Crimi­nal Motion No. 12 (l)/86. 4. Further submission of the counsel for present petitioner is that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as abated for non-substitution of the legal representatives of the revision petitioner who died in 19^1. This fact was not brought before the revisional Court. The revision petition was filed on 22.6.87 and notice of motion was issued on 23.6.87 and Rule was issued on 24.7.87. There was no order of this Court «for stay of the impugned order. When the matter came for hearing on 12.7.93 none appeared for the parties. On the ground of personal difficulty of the counsel for opposite party (present petitioner) hearing was adjourned for two weeks and when the matter came for hearing on 7.9.93 it was decided under section 403 CrPC by this Court. 5. Section 145 (7) CrPC provides that if during pendency of the procee­ding, any party to the proceeding dies the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the proceeding. 6. 5. Section 145 (7) CrPC provides that if during pendency of the procee­ding, any party to the proceeding dies the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the proceeding. 6. The point to be considered in this case is whether the non substitu­tion of the legal representatives in the icvision petition vitiates the finding of the revision Court. 7. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is very wide to test the correctness, legality or even the propriety of the findings or order of the subordinate Court or for satisfying itself as to the regularity of the procee­ding of the Court below. Apparently revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does not relate to ascertain the right, title and interest of the parties but it is invoked to test the jurisdiction, material irregularity and illegality of an order of the subordinate Court. Therefore, unlike an appeal under the Code, revi­sion Court can decide the matter referred for revision without substitution as the final relief has to be given by the Court other than the revision Court. 8. In that view of the matter, the right, title and interest of a party cannot be vitiated if the revision Court found the decision of the Court in form on the point of jurisdiction, illegality or irregularity. The right, title of the parties under section 145 CrPC is always decided by a civil Court only, even if possession is delivered in fovour of any of the parties. 9. The prayer of the petitioner to recall the judgment is nothing but a prayer to review the same. Section 362 CrPC provides that no Court when it signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmstical error. Inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits. In Matilal vs. State of MP ( AIR 1994 SC 1544 ) the Apex Court held that section 362 CrPC in clear terms lays down that Court cannot alter judgment after the same has been signed except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. That being the position the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC to alter the earlier judgment. 10. That being the position the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC to alter the earlier judgment. 10. In that view of the matter the aggrieved party can approach the appropriate forum to agitate their right, title and interest. I find no substance in the revision petition and accordingly it is rejected.