Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate assisting the Court. 2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 20.11.95, returning the Criminal M.P. No. of 1995 unnumbered in M.C. No. 9 of 1992 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Madurai and refusing to entertain the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to set aside the exparte order dated 1. 94 passed in M.C. No. 9 of 1992. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had no knowledge about the date of hearing of the said M.C. No. 9 of 1992, and therefore after the knowledge of the order dated 1. 97, the petitioner immediately filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to set aside the order dated 1. 97, of course, after a delay of 19 months 7 days for just and bona fide reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Crl. M.P. of 1995 unnumbered in M.C. No. 9 of 1992. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Judicial Magistrate-VII, Madurai, even without going into the merits and demerits of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Proviso to Section 126 Cl. (2) of the Cr.P.C, has simply returned the petition on 211. 95, rejecting the reasons for the said delay. Hence the above revision. 4. I have perused the above order of returning dated 211. 95 of the learned Judicial Magistrate-VII, Madurai. Unfortunately, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of returning dated 211. 95 does not contain any reasons for rejecting the application to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 1. 94 passed in M.C.No.9 of 1992. 5. When an application is filed to set aside an ex parte order, the law requires that the court is expected to pass a speaking order giving reason for refusing to condone the delay in filing a petition, to set aside such ex parte order. It is needless to mention that Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure to be followed in disposing the application to condone the delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte order. It is needless to mention that Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure to be followed in disposing the application to condone the delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte order. The non-observance of the procedure prescribed under the code vitiates the order of return dated 20.95. Hence, the same is aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, with a direction to number the Crl.M.P. of 1995 unnumbered in M.C.No.9 of 1992 and to pass appropriate orders on merits within three months from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, the revision is allowed with the above direction. No costs.