M. C. JAIN, J. Heard learned coun sel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. for opposite party No. 1-State. 2. The revisionist is the complainant in S. T. No. 474 of 1983 State v Jaipal under Section 302, IPC pending in the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh. P. W. 1 Chandramukhi and P. W. 2 Khachor Singh were examined in the case wherein the name of opposite party No. 3 Sohan Singh also figured as one of the culprits of the crime as the person who exhorted the main assailant Jaipal who murdered the deceased- Raghunath Singh. Thereafter, the State made an application under Sec tion 319, Cr. P. C. to summon Sohan Singh also as co-accused. By order dated 10-7-1984, the Court below allowed the said application made by the State under Sec tion 319, Cr. P. C. Thereafter, it recalled the earlier order dated 10-7-1984 by the impugned order dated 23-7-1984 on the ground that the earlier order had been obtained by the Reader without hearing the parties counsel. The complainant has challenged this order dated 23-7-1984 passed by the Court below. 3. Once the order dated 10-7-1984 had been passed, the same could not be recalled by the impugned order dated 23-7-1984. It is also found that Sohan Singh opposite party No. 3 did figure as one of the co- accused with the role on exhortation having been assigned to him as per state ments of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. In this view of the matter also, there could be no justifica tion for recalling the order dated 10-7-1984 by the impugned order dated 23-7-1984, When the evidence had come to be there in the statements of the above named two witnesses against opposite party No. 3 Sohan Singh, the Court could proceed against him as per provisions of Section 319, Cr PC. The order dated 23-7-1984 passed by the Court below is patently il legal. 4. The revision is allowed. The order dated 23-7-84 in question is quashed. The earlier order dated 10-7- 84 passed by the Court below shall hold good and the ses sions trial in question shall proceed fur ther according to law. The stay order dated 2-8-1984 stands vacated. The trial being of year 1984, it shall be expedited by the Court below. 5. The order dated 23-7-84 in question is quashed. The earlier order dated 10-7- 84 passed by the Court below shall hold good and the ses sions trial in question shall proceed fur ther according to law. The stay order dated 2-8-1984 stands vacated. The trial being of year 1984, it shall be expedited by the Court below. 5. The office shall send a copy of this order to the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh for needful action as per law. Revision allowed. .