1. This matter comes up on a reference by one of us. There I had said:

"I had disposed of the Criminal Revision Petition on 23rd August, 1982. At the time of hearing the counsel for the petitioner was absent. But I looked into the records and found that there was no reason to interfere with the order impugned.

2. In the affidavit in support of this petition, the counsel for the petitioner has explained his absence. I have no hesitation in accepting his explanation and therefore it was for reasons beyond his control he happened to be absent. I had directed that the Crl. M. P. be posted along with the other records in the Crl. R. P. so that if the Crl. M. P. could be allowed, the Crl. R. P. could be reheard immediately and orders passed.

3. However, Mr. M. C. Nambiar, learned counsel for respondent raised an objection regarding the maintainability of Crl. M. P. in the light of a decision of this Court reported in 1980 KLT. 13. Justice Narayana Pillai in that case relying on AIR. 1962 SC. 1208 and AIR. 1979 SC. 87 has held 1970 KLT. 495 and 1977 KLT. 840 which decisions had held that if a petition is disposed of without hearing the opposite party it can be reopened and rehear