Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 02.02.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri in C.M.P.No.460 of 2006, this revision is focussed. 2. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner, none appeared. Heard the learned Government Advocate (crl.side). 3. A resume of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The revision petitioner herein filed C.M.P.No.460 of 2006 under Section 13(3) of Tamil Nadu Birth and Death Registration, for getting his sons name, viz. P.Dinesh, registered in the birth register. He took steps also to effect publication in the newspaper. However, on the date of hearing, i.e. on 02.02.2007, he could not appear. Whereupon, the learned Magistrate dismissed it, presumably for default. Hence this revision. 4. Animadverting upon such dismissal, this revision has been filed highlighting that on 01.02.2007 itself the revision petitioner received a phone message from his Advocate that the advocates would be on boycott on 02.02.2007 and hence the revision petitioner himself could appear before the Magistrate Court. But before the petitioner could reach the Magistrate Court from his native place, so to say, Nellore, the Magistrate dismissed the petition. Hence he prays for an opportunity. 5. This is a different type of case unlike other criminal cases and hence I am of the view that the petitioner could have no reason to simply abstain from the Court and his reason is acceptable and one more opportunity could be given. Hence the order dated 02.02.2007 passed by the Magistrate is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is disposed of.