Judgment : It is stated by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties that their efforts to settle the dispute amicably has bee proved futile. So, the matter is to be taken up for hearing on merit. There is a C.R.A.N. application as well as the revisional application. The C.R.A.N. application is for condonation of delay I filing the revisional application while by the revisional application, the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 27th October, 200 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyan Nadia in M. P. Case No.25 of 2008 has been challenged. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the main application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C has already been disposed of by the learned Trial Court and it was dismissed on merit. On the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the C.R.A.N. application and the revisional application are taken up together for disposal today. The petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has bee filed for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the revisional application. It is found that the reason given for delay is sufficient an reasonable. Therefore, the prayer under Section 5 of the Limitation Ac is allowed. The application being C.R.A.N.1320 of 2010 is, thus disposed of. On perusal of the order dated 27.10.2009, it appears that the Misc. Case No.95 of 2005 which was dismissed earlier by the learned Trial Court was sought to be revived. The learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that it has become functus officio and there specific bar in reviving such an order of dismissal in view of Section 362 of the Cr. P. C. I find no illegality, incorrectness and impropriety of the order dated 27.10.2009. Therefore, this Court declines to interfere with the order by invoking its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional application stands dismissed and is dispose of.