JUDGMENT : In re: C.R.A.N.1655 of 2015. 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in the original CRR 2942 of 2013 in which it has been made out that the revisionist, namely, Ratan Karmakar who was one of the accused persons facing trial in the learned Court below has died during pendency of the revisional application on account of which the same has become infractuous and, therefore, ought to be dismissed. 2. CRAN 3270 of 2014 has been filed by two other accused persons facing trial in the selfsame case. 3. The opposite party no. 2 in this application happens to be the wife of the revisionist himself. They have filed this application for being added as parties in CRR 2942 of 2013 since their contentions are that they will be severely prejudiced, if the revision preferred by the deceased/co-accused is dropped since they have been equally affected by the impugned order which was the subject matter of the original revision, and they did not prefer to separately challenge the same as the final verdict in the revision would have automatically extended the benefit, if any, to all the accused persons. 4. It is also understandable that the petitioners have chosen to be added as the opposite parties in the revision in such peculiar circumstances since an independent Revision filed by them after the death of the original revisionist would stand automatically barred by limitation. 5. When the original revision was admitted on 27th of August, 2013, the concerned Bench did find prima facie merit in the same and had therefore ordered stay of further proceedings in the original complaint case pending herein on the matter. 6. In such circumstances, this Court need not treat the matter in a hypertechnical manner since essentially the merits and propriety of the impugned order which affect all the accused persons are to be considered, and as such omission by some of the accused persons to specifically challenge the same separately when one among them had actually challenged the same need not be considered in an adverse light. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the application being CRAN 1655 of 2015 is thus rejected and the application being CRAN 3270 of 2014 is allowed 8. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the application being CRAN 1655 of 2015 is thus rejected and the application being CRAN 3270 of 2014 is allowed 8. Accordingly, the petitioners in CRAN 3270 of 2014 are permitted to add as parties to the revisional application and to continue pursuing the original revisional application which shall now come up under the heading “Specially Fixed Matter” on 7th of October, 2015.