I. S. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 449 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 25. 2. 1995 and 22. 5. 1995 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Misc. Case No. 13 of 1994, State v. Daya Shanker and Others u/sec. 465 Cr. . C. By the first mentioned order, the learned Sessions Judge bad directed realisation of a sum of Rs. 11,000/- from the appellant and by the second order, the learned Sessions Judge bas refused to recall the said order. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate state that this appeal may be disposed of finally at this stage as the matter involved is rather trivial. This appears to be proper. ( 3 ) IT appears that the appellant stood surety for the accused Lallo Basudev. Lallo absented on one of the dates fixed and, accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail and forfeited the surety bonds and issued notice to the appellant to show cause why the amount mentioned in the order be not realised from him. In the meanwhile, the accused was produced before the Court and was sent to jail. He has subsequently been released on fresh bail bonds. The appellant moved the learned Sessions Judge for recalling the order of realisation but this prayer bas been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 25. 2. 1995, inter alia, on the ground that the order is appealable. ( 4 ) IT appears that the appellant did not file objection due to some mistake or misunderstanding, possibly because be bad already produced the appellant before the Court. It seems that the learned Sessions Judge did not recall his earlier order mainly because of the fact that the order was appealable. This, in deed, is true. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon Paras Nath Pathak v. State of U. P. , in support of his submission that merely on account of failure to file objection, the Court should not have presumed absence of defence. The facts of that case were more or less similar. This, in deed, is true. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon Paras Nath Pathak v. State of U. P. , in support of his submission that merely on account of failure to file objection, the Court should not have presumed absence of defence. The facts of that case were more or less similar. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, it appears to be just and proper that the aforesaid two orders be quashed, the appellant be given a fresh opportunity for filing objection and the learned Sessions Judge be directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders dated 25. 2. 1995 and 22. 5. 1995 are quashed. The appellant may file his objection against the notice issued to him within two weeks from today and the learned III Additional Sessions Judge or the Court where the case is transferred with law after giving an opportunity to the appellant. It is further directed that the surety amount, directed to be released, shall not be realised till the disposal of the case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. A certified copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel for the appellant on payment of usual charges within three days. Appeal allowed. .