JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.8.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2014, Sechan v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi, while setting aside the order dated 11.2.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pindra, District Varanasi, in Case No. 31/17 of 2014, Sechan v. Jai Ram and another, under Section 133 Cr.P.C., has remanded the case to the S.D.M., Pindra, Varanasi, directing him to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 2. Heard Sri R.N. Rai, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rang Nath Pandey, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. Perused the record. 3. An application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was moved by O.P. No. 2, Sechan, before the S.D.M. Pindra, Varanasi, for removal of a poultry farm run by Jai Ram and Ram Raj, who are the revisionists in the present revision. The S.D.M. called for reports from the police station concerned, the Pollution Control Board and the C.M.O., Varanasi. The reports were submitted before the Magistrate, who after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, passed the order dated 11.2.2014 whereby allowing the revisionists to continue with their business of poultry farm subject to certain conditions relating to cleanliness and sanitation of the poultry farm and also of surrounding environment. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, applicant Sechan who is O.P. No. 2, in instant revision preferred Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2014 before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, praying for setting aside the said order. Learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi, summoned the original record and after considering the fact that the O.P. No. 2, Sechan was not given proper opportunity of hearing and the order was passed by the S.D.M. without hearing him, set aside the order of the S.D.M. and remanded the file with the direction to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 5. Being aggrieved, the owners of the poultry farm namely Jai Ram and Ram Raj have approached this Court by means of the present revision, challenging the aforesaid order of remand passed by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, mainly on the following grounds : 6. 5. Being aggrieved, the owners of the poultry farm namely Jai Ram and Ram Raj have approached this Court by means of the present revision, challenging the aforesaid order of remand passed by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, mainly on the following grounds : 6. The impugned order, passed by the Court below, without application of mind, is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the evidence on record. Learned Sessions Judge has passed the order without considering the fact that sufficient opportunity was given by the S.D.M. to the O.P. No. 2, Sechan, to adduce evidence and he was heard also but the Court below unnecessarily remanded the matter without even keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments that the Court should avoid remand of a case and only under exceptional circumstances, any matter should be remanded because remand of a case causes delay in its disposal and entails another round of litigation. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. have contended that the learned Court below i.e. Sessions Judge, Varanasi had summoned the record from the Court of S.D.M., Varanasi and after a detailed date-wise discussion of the entire order-sheet, he came to the conclusion that due to lawyer’s strike on several dates fixed in this case, opposite party No. 2 could not adduce his evidence but his opportunity to adduce evidence was closed by learned S.D.M. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has further submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the revisionist by the impugned order by which the case has merely been remanded. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has drawn my attention to the order dated 24.9.2014 passed by this Court, whereby the revisionist was directed to file certified copy of the order-sheet of Case No. 31/17 under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and has argued that the certified copy of order-sheet dated 31.1.2014, clearly shows that only opposite parties (revisionists in the present case) were heard on that date and 5.2.2014 was fixed for orders. It has further been argued that the revisionists have deliberately not filed the order-sheets of 30.1.2014 and also of dates 5.2.2014 and 6.2.2014. It has further been argued that the revisionists have deliberately not filed the order-sheets of 30.1.2014 and also of dates 5.2.2014 and 6.2.2014. The submission of learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 is that the proceedings of all the dates have been mentioned in detail by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment which shows that learned Court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion that Sechan was not heard. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record and the impugned order dated 20.8.2014, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi, has very elaborately discussed the entire Court proceedings date-wise in the order impugned before coming to the conclusion that opposite party No. 2 Sechan was deprived of opportunity of hearing. Learned Sessions Judge has categorically mentioned that the lawyers were abstaining from work on 30.12.2013, 16.1.2014 and 18.1.2014, the dates fixed in the case. Thereafter 30.1.2014 was fixed for recording evidence of the plaintiff. On 30.1.2014 also, the lawyers were on strike, hence 31.1.2014 was fixed. On 31.1.2014 the plaintiff Sechan moved an application with prayer to give him some time to adduce evidence but his prayer was rejected and his opportunity to adduce evidence was closed. Only defendants (revisionists in the present case) were heard and 5.2.2014 was fixed for order. On 5.2.2014 Sechan again moved an application to give him opportunity of hearing, hence 6.2.2014 was fixed. On 6.2.2014 arguments were heard but it is not clear that whether both the parties were heard or not. On 11.2.2014 the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the order. In the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has clearly observed that the order sheet dated 6.2.2014 only mentions that “Heard arguments”. Whether arguments of both the sides were heard or not, is not clear from the order dated 6.2.2014. Under these circumstances the learned Sessions Judge, while holding that as the opportunity of O.P. No. 2 of adducing evidence was closed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and he was not given proper opportunity of hearing and the order was passed ex parte by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, allowed the revision filed by O.P. No. 2, Sechan, and remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 10. 10. Now returning back to the instant revision, the order sheet of the instant revision shows that it has not yet been admitted, however, affidavits have been exchanged between the parties on the direction of this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed by O.P. No. 2 it has been clearly stated that the learned S.D.M. while passing the order whereby allowing the revisionists Jai Ram and Ram Raj to continue with their poultry farm business, ignored the medical treatment papers filed by O.P. No. 2 to show that all his family members have to suffer from Tuberculosis because of unhygienic condition and stinking and polluted environment due to existence of poultry farm of the revisionists having over 15000 chickens in it. 11. By the impugned order the matter has merely been remanded to the trial Court (the Court of the S.D.M.) with the direction to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The revisionists will have ample opportunity to make submissions before the Court of S.D.M., Pindra, Varanasi at the time of hearing. The natural justice demands that no one should be condemned unheard. Whereas, a careful perusal of the date-wise description of the order sheet of the Case No. 31/17 of 2014 of S.D.M.’s Court, as mentioned in the impugned judgment and which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the revisionists, shows that proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the O.P. No. 2.. 12. In Nagarjuna Constructions Co. v. Government of A.P.; (2008) 16 SCC 276, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “Whenever an order is struck down as invalid, being a violation of the principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the cause and the matter is not decided on merits.” Earlier in (Supdt. (Tech 1) Central Excise v. Pratap Rai; (1978) 3 SCC 113 , also the Apex Court ha laid down the law as under : “whenever an order is struck down as invalid being a violation of the principle of natural justice, there is no final decision of the cause and fresh proceedings are open to the authority.” In Kesru v. State of H.P.; 1978 Cr LJ 297, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “An order of sessions judge remanding a case is an interlocutory order and as such revision against the same is not maintainable.” In Ranjeet Singh Gujral v. Debt. Recovery Appellate Tribunal; AIR 2005 AU 351, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “Order of remand is an interlocutory order as the Court has not terminated the proceedings.” 13. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, the order impugned in this revision is an interlocutory order, the revision against which is not maintainable. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to the revisionist by the impugned order. The Court below has passed the order keeping in view the principle of natural justice and the right of each and every person to have opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, from which opposite party No. 2 Sechan has been deprived. 14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances in light of the legal position as cited above, there appears no force in the instant revision and it is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 15. The revision is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the matter is pending since long, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pindra, Varanasi, is directed to decide the case under Section 133 Cr.P.C. expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, after hearing both the parties and without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of them. ——————