JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is the second round of litigation before this Court in this case. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anoopgarh by way of Case No. 2/2007. Kewal Singh, respondent no. 2 herein, filed S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 501/2010 before this Court assailing the orders passed by the subordinate courts directing attachment of the property. When the matter came up for consideration on 28.7.2011, this Court was of the opinion that as there was no stay operating in the case, the original case might have been proceeded with by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Accordingly, the misc. petition was dismissed. However, this Court observed that the petitioner was at liberty to plead his case before the learned Executive Magistrate by way of producing the evidence and also by cross examining the opposite parties witness. 3. While the petition filed by Kewal Singh was still pending, it appears that on 11.7.2011, the learned S.D.M. after making complete enquiry in the case, proceeded to drop the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. and directed handing over of the possession of the property in question to Ajayab Singh, the petitioner herein. Kewal Singh in order to take advantage of the observations made by this Court while deciding misc. petition no. 501/2010, approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh by way of a revision. 4. Vide order dated 31.1.2012, the revisional court interpreted this Court's order dated 28.7.2011 by observing that Kewal Singh was given liberty to have the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. reopened, remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration of the case after providing Kewal Singh, an opportunity to lead evidence. Now the instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Ajayab Singh challenging the order dated 31.1.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ajayab Singh contended that the proceedings had been made ex-parte against respondent Kewal Singh long back. Kewal Singh filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses which was rejected by the learned S.D.M. on 28.7.2010. The revision against the said order was also rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this Court had never directed or permitted Kewal Singh to have the case reopened. Kewal Singh filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses which was rejected by the learned S.D.M. on 28.7.2010. The revision against the said order was also rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this Court had never directed or permitted Kewal Singh to have the case reopened. The observation made by this Court was only in the event of the proceedings being still alive and nothing beyond that. He thus submitted that the direction whereby the learned revisional court has reopened the proceedings and directed the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. to be commenced afresh, is absolutely illegal and amounts to a gross abuse of process of court and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 Kewal Singh have opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the revisional court has independently and without being influenced by the order passed by this Court, directed reopening of the proceedings and thus, no interference is called for in the matter. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the order impugned as well as the record of the case. 8. When this Court decided the misc. petition no. 501/2010 on 28.7.2011, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 Kewal Singh did not inform the Court about the original proceedings having been concluded before the learned S.D.M. 9. It may be mentioned here that Kewal Singh's evidence had been closed by the learned S.D.M. and he sought reopening of the opportunity to lead evidence by filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The said application was rejected by the learned S.D.M. and the revision against the said order was also dismissed. Thus, the right of Kewal Singh to lead evidence before the subordinate court had been extinguished and such closure remained unchallenged. The observation made before this Court in the order dated 28.7.2011 was just in the event of the proceedings before the learned S.D.M. being alive. It was never intended to give a handle to the parties to have the proceedings reopened. That is precisely what the revisional court has done. The observation made before this Court in the order dated 28.7.2011 was just in the event of the proceedings before the learned S.D.M. being alive. It was never intended to give a handle to the parties to have the proceedings reopened. That is precisely what the revisional court has done. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, there was no justification for the revisional court to have directed the reopening of the proceedings under Sections 145 Cr.P.C. 10. Resultantly, the instant miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The order dated 31.1.2012 directing remand of the case so as permit Kewal Singh to lead evidence and to contest the case before the S.D.M., is hereby quashed. 11. Stay petition also stands disposed of. 12. Record be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed. *******