JUDGMENT 1. -Office objection regarding certified copy of the order dated 13.6.1994 as mentioned in the order sheet dated 10.4.1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge Bali is over ruled. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner the matter has beer taken up for admission and disposal today itself and it is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. 2. I have examined the order dated 13.6.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judg Bali, Distt. Pali. The revision petition was dismissed on the sole ground that the learner counsel representing the petitioner was not present before the Court on the date of hearing Prima facie, I am of the view that the revision petition should not have been dismissed an rather the case should have been heard and decided on merit even though the counsel way not present. Fresh notice should have been issued to the respondents directing them to appeal before the Court and only thereafter the order should have been passed. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Suresh Kumbha has stated that on account of inadvertence on the part of the learned counsel the exact daft of hearing could not be noted in his case diary and as a result of which he could not be presen before the Court on 10.4.1998 when the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Cod( of Criminal Procedure envisages that the disposal of cases should be on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record and not dismiss the case for non-prosecution. 4. As a result of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 10.4.1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bali is set-aside. The matter is restored to its original number and the same shall be heard and decided on merits after giving due notice to the parties. 5. With the above observations the misc. petition is allowed and stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******