JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition was listed in the Court yesterday. During the pre-lunch session, it was requested by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned revisional Court is going to decide the matter today (3.1.2006) itself and, therefore, the matter may be heard out of turn today. After hearing, ad interim order was passed on 3. 1.2006 at 12.55 P.M. After the lunch-break, at 2 O'clock, learned Counsel Shri Vinod Bhadu and Shri Manish Dadhich appeared and made a request that in the case they have already filed memo of appearance but the case was heard out of turn due to urgency shown by learned Counsel for the petitioner and thus stay order has been obtained. They, therefore, prayed that the case be listed on (4.1.2006) for hearing and, for the same, they have also filed application for recalling the order dated 3.1.2006. Upon that application, permission was granted to list the case today (4.1.2006). 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has challenged order dated 12.12.2005 whereby the non-petitioner nos. 5 to 15 were impleaded as party in the revision petition. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application for impleading them as party respondents was already rejected by the learned ADM City, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 1.10.2005. The non-petitioners nos. 5 to 15 have not challenged the said order and a fresh application was filed before the revisional Court, therefore, the revisional Court has committed error while allowing the non-petitioners nos. 5 to 15 as party in the revision petition. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners no. 5 to 15 stated that though their application was rejected by the ADM City, Sri Ganganagar on 1.10.2005 but the same has been challenged by them by way of filing the miscellaneous petition pending before this Court as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition no. 1154/2005 which is listed today itself. 4. I have perused that miscellaneous petition which is listed today at Serial no. 68 also It is true that the order rejecting application to be impleaded as party before the learned ADM vide order dated 1.10.2005 is under challenge before this Court but still there is no stay order in favour of non- petitioners no. 5 to 15. The only notices were issued by this Court on 22.10.2005. 68 also It is true that the order rejecting application to be impleaded as party before the learned ADM vide order dated 1.10.2005 is under challenge before this Court but still there is no stay order in favour of non- petitioners no. 5 to 15. The only notices were issued by this Court on 22.10.2005. In these circumstances, when the order passed by the learned ADM City, Sri Ganganagar dated 1.10.2005 is still In existence and there is no question to allow the non-petitioner nos. 5 to 15 to participate in the proceedings before this Court, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners Mr. Vinod Bhadu stated at bar that the order dated 12.12.2005 may be set aside but the learned Sessions Judge may be directed to decide the revision petition without further delay. It is obvious that once on one hand it is stated at bar that order dated 12.12.2005 may be set aside whereby they were impleaded as party then no such prayer can be accepted for directing revisional Court to decide the matter expeditiously. Further it is contended by the non-petitioner No. 4 Rambhaj that direction may be issued to the revisional Court to decide the matter forthwith. 5. After hearing both the parties while quashing the order dated 12.12.2005 upon the prayer made by the non-petitioner No. 4 Rambhaj the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar is directed to decide the revision petition filed by the petitioner which is listed as Revision Petition No. 165/2005 within the period of one week from the receipt of this order. 6. With this direction, the petition is allowed.Petition allowed. *******