( 1 ) CRIMINAL Revision No. 400 of 1989 was filed by Raghuvira and four others against the order dated 17-3-89 passed by Sri Jagdish Singh, III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dismissing the appeal of the applicants.

( 2 ) 14-3-1990 was fixed for admission of the revision application. The case was on the list and when none appeared for the applicants even in the revised list, the revision application was dismissed as not pressed.

( 3 ) THE contentions of the applicants are that once an application for revision is filed in the court, the same cannot be dismissed for default as not pressed and the order dated 14-3-1990 was bad in law. On the other hand the contentions of the opposite parties are that once the application for revision is dismissed for default as not pressed, the Court has no jurisdiction to recall its earlier order.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that Section 362 Cr. P. C. debars the court from altering or reviewing any final order or judgement given by a court except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error. But the question arises whether an order dismissing an application for revision for