JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition under Section 482, Cr.PC. has been filed against Order dated 20.4.2007 whereby Additional Sessions Judge Hindaun City fixed the case (Cr. Rev. No. 88/04) for final disposal while observing that record of Court of Assistant City Magistrate despite best efforts is not traceable. 2. Proceedings under Sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C. were initiated on a complaint filed by S.H.O. P.S. Garamora -notice whereof was served upon respondents therein and after examining inter-se dispute in regard to the land in question, final Order was passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Hindaun on 19.8.2002-against which instant petitioner preferred revision petition pending it, application was filed that record of Court of A.C.M. Sapotra is necessary for dust decision in the matter and it appears that the Court at relevant time, considered proper to call for the record at the request of petitioner and since the record was not traceable. Court of revision directed both the parties to file their written arguments-against which petitioner filed Cr. Misc. Petition No. 718/05 wherein this Court vide Order dated 6.7.2005 disposed of the petition while observing that if application is filed by petitioner for summoning the record from A.C.M. Sapotra, the Court of revision shall consider such an application to summon relevant files and in absence whereof, liberty was granted to approach this Court. Hence this petition. 3. It appears from the record that under directions of this Court vide Order dated 6.7.2005 efforts were made by Court of revision to summon the record from the Court of A.C.M. Sapotra but despite series of correspondences made as observed, relevant record which the petitioner seeks to be examined by Court of revision, is not traceable and since matter was old one, Court of revision considered proper to call for the parties to file their written arguments, particularly when Order of A.C.M. is already available on record. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that once there was an Order of this Court. Court of revision was under obligation to consider material record from A.C.M. Sapotra and only thereafter decide the revision pending before it and since the record in question is still not available, Court of revision was not justified in proceeding further to finally decide revision petition in absence of relevant material. 5. Court of revision was under obligation to consider material record from A.C.M. Sapotra and only thereafter decide the revision pending before it and since the record in question is still not available, Court of revision was not justified in proceeding further to finally decide revision petition in absence of relevant material. 5. On the other hand, Counsel for respondents submits that Orders earlier passed by this Court in revision petition, they were not party to it and that apart, record which is required to be examined by Court of revision is of S.D.M. Hindaun City whose Order is Impugned in revision petition before Court of revision: and in fact record of A.C.M. Sapotra is otherwise not relevant for consideration inasmuch as in pursuance of Order of this Court earlier passed, best efforts were made and letters after letters were sent to summon the record in question but it appears that since it is not traceable and revision petition being old one, Court of revision considered it proper to ask the parties to file their written arguments and accordingly no error has been committed while passing Order impugned. 6. This Court has gone through the Order impugned. Court of revision under directions of this Court made best efforts to trace out the record of A.C.M. Sapotra. There is no material on record which may at all substantiate as to how the record of A.C.M. Sapotra is relevant while examining the revision petition. That apart, Order impugned discloses about efforts being made but since the record is not traceable, and explanation has also been called of concerned officials and yet when the record of S.D.M. Hindaun is not available, still written arguments have been called for and which have been submitted by the parties. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity committed by Court below while passing Order impugned. 7. Consequently, the misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The record be sent forthwith to the Court below. Court of revision is expected to dispose of matter expeditiously in accordance with law. A copy of this Order be sent forthwith to the Court below for compliance. Petition Dismissed. *******