ORDER Heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17/11/2005 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, whereby the revisional Court dismissed the revision for non-compliance of its direction i.e. non-payment of PF for issuing notice to respondents No.6, 7, 8 & 9 and for not imp-leading the legal heirs of deceased respondents No.5, 11, 14 & IS. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that revision has been filed on legal questions and the learned revisional Court has no jurisdiction to dismiss the revision merely on the non-fulfillment of payment of PF or non-imp-leading of legal heirs of the deceased non-applicants. The order dated 9/7/97 which was challenged by the petitioners before the revisional Court was passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raigarh under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., declaring possession of non-applicants over the disputed land. Under Section 145(7) of the Cr.P.C., it is necessary that if during the proceeding, any of the parties dies, his/her legal representatives should be brought on record. Therefore, it was incumbent on the part of petitioners who filed the revision to imp-lead legal representatives of non-applicants No.5, 11, 14 & 15, who were dead. Section 40 1(2) of the Cr.P.C. imposes a restriction on the revisional Court not to pass any order against a party without affording him opportunity of hearing. For prosecuting the revision, it was essential for the petitioners to pay Process Fee for issuing of notices against non-applicants No.6, 7, 8 & 9, and it was also essential for them to imp-lead the legal representatives of deceased non-applicants No.5, 11, 14 & 15; but neither petitioners paid the PF nor imp-leaded the legal representatives of the deceased non-applicants, even they did not pray for any opportunity to remove those impediments before the revisional court. Therefore, learned revisional Court was unable to decide the revision on merit for want of compliance of its orders and in absence of necessary parties, even petitioners in the instant petition did not imp-lead the legal representatives of deceased non-applicants No. 5, 11, 14& 15 and in absence of those necessary parties, without being imp-leaded no order against them by this Court too can be passed in their back. For non-compliance of its order and also for not imp-leading the legal representatives of the deceased non-applicants, learned revisional Court was helpless to pass any order on merit and it had no other option but to dismiss the revision for non-compliance of its order and for non-imp-leading the legal representatives of the deceased non-applicants and that he did. In my opinion the impugned order passed by revisional Court is not abuse of process of the Court and in the interest of justice also no interference is called for in the impugned order. In the result, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in-limine. Revision Rejected.