JUDGEMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 27th June, 2005, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, thereby dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No.250/2002, filed by the petitioners and the order dated 2nd April, 2007 there by dismissing the Criminal Misc.(Delay) Application No.38/2006, for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration. 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition, are as under: The petitioner No.1 is the wife and No.2, is the son of the respondent No.2. The petitioners had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.463/1999, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.6), Ahmednagar, claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs.1500/-each per month. The said application was opposed by the present respondent No.2. Vide order dated 17th September, 2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahemdangar, the same application came to be allowed to the extent of petitioner No.2 and maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month was granted. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed Criminal Revision Application No.250/2002, on 26th November, 2002, before the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The learned revisional court, vide order dated 24th January, 2005, called for the record and proceedings. However, it appears that the present petitioners, so also their counsel were not diligent enough in tending the proceedings and as such the revision came to be dismissed in default on 27th June, 2005. 4. Thereafter, it appears that on erroneous advice, an application for restoration of Revision Application, along with the application for condonation of delay, came to be filed and the same was rejected by Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-3, Ahmednagar, vide order dated 2nd April, 2007. Hence, the present petition. 5. Shri N.V.Gaware, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the learned revisional court grossly erred in dismissing the revision application in default. He submits that once a revision petition is admitted and records of the Court below are called for examining the correctness or otherwise of the order sought to be revised, there is no justification for the Court to reject the petition for default. The Court must proceed to decide it on merits regardless the representation of the parties. He relies on the judgment of this court in the case of in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 776. 6. Shri N.C.Garud, learned counsel for respondent No.2, vehemently opposed this petition. The Court must proceed to decide it on merits regardless the representation of the parties. He relies on the judgment of this court in the case of in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 776. 6. Shri N.C.Garud, learned counsel for respondent No.2, vehemently opposed this petition. He submits that the petitioners were not diligent at all in attending the matter and as such they are not entitled for any discretionary relief. He further submits that the learned revisional court has rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of. 7. Insofar as the order dated 2nd April, 2007 is concerned, no fault could be found in the said order inasmuch as there is no provision which enables the revisoal court to review the matter when it was decided. However, it could be seen that the said application was filed under an erroneous advise. 8. The Apex Court in the case of supra has held that if a counsel is absent when the appeal is called out, the court instead of dismissing the appeal in default should decide it on merits and appoint the counsel from the legal aid to assist the court. 9. This court in the case of V/s State & others (cited supra) has also held that once the court has called record and proceedings, it is not proper for the revisional court to dismiss the matter in default. It is the duty of the revisional court to decide the matter on merits, after examining record and proceedings. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the order dated 27th June, 2005 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.250/2002, dismissing the revision in default, is not sustainable in law. 10. In the result, the Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). 11. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Ahemdangar on 26th September, 2007 and the learned Sessions Judge, thereafter decide the revision application on merits, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.