JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. No body appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

3. It appears from the records that notices were issued to opposite party nos. 1, 1(A), 1(B), 2 and 2(A) vide order dated 24.01.2013 and notice upon opposite party nos. 1, 1(A), 2 and 2(A) was validly served, but notice upon opposite party no. 1(B) was received by his brother and thereafter, fresh steps were taken for service of notice upon opposite party no. 1(B) pursuant to the order dated 11.04.2013 read with order dated 04.07.2013. Thereafter, the notice was again received by his brother and consequently, vide order dated 27.09.2013, a direction was issued to take steps for service of notice upon opposite party no. 1(B) through paper publication having wide publication in the district of Godda and steps for that purpose were taken and thus, the service of notice is complete and no one is appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

4. This criminal revision petition has been filed for the following relief :

“That the petitioners figured as Ist party craves to move in Cr. Revision in this Hon’ble Court against the order impugned in a p