The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the revisionist to be heard and the court's power to recall orders in criminal revisions to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

( 1 ) INSTANT application has been moved to recall order dated 16. 8. 2000 whereby Criminal Revision no. 108 of 1997, Smt. Manju Singh v. Tara Chand and Anr. was dismissed on 16. 8. 2000.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the record.

( 3 ) THE fact of the case is that Smt. Manju Singh lodged FIR against the opposite parses Tara chand and his son Vijay Pal on 7. 5. 1993 at 9. 15 P. M. at police station Kotwali Dehat, district saharanpur, bearing Crime No. 212 of 1993 under Sections 323, 324, 504 I. P. C containing the fact that on 7. 5. 2003 at 7. 00 P. M. in furtherance of common intention of both the Opposite parties, the O. P. No. 2 Vijay son of O. P. No. 1 Tara Chand caused injuries with knife on abdomen of her husband Dharam Sen and other injuries were also caused with intention to commit his murder. After the FIR was lodged medical examination of Dharam Sen was got done in Bhel Main Hospital, Ranpur, Hardwar on 7. 5. 93 at 7. 30 P. M. and following injuries were found on his body:

1. Incised wound 6. 0 cm x 1. 0 cm x depth not probed on front upper part of abdomen 8. 0 cm below the epigastric natch. Fresh bleeding present. Margins clean cut Referred for urgent surgical operation. 2. Abraded contusion 5. 0 cm x 2. 0 cm back of left fore arm 10. 0 cm below the elbow joint. 3. Complaint of pain in right arm.

( 4 ) INJURY No. 1 was kept under observation. Dharm Sen was admitted in Bhel Main Hospital, ranipur, Hardwar, In surgical Ward on 8. 5. 1993 at 1. 15 A. M. He was immediately operated and operative findings were as below:

1. Incised wound 2 long in the epigastric region place transversely. 2. On exploration the above mentioned would was found to be deep and the peritoneum was torn and greater omenturn coming through it. 3. No injury to abdominal viscera.

( 5 ) THE patient remained admitted from 8. 5. 1993 to 19. 5. 1993 when he was discharged from the hospital.

( 6 ) AFTER investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 307, 323, 324, 504 I. P. C. and criminal Case No. 2095 of 1993, State v. Tara Chand and Anr. was registered. The learned 1st acjm, Saharanpur committed to the Court of Sessions on 9. 4. 1996 under Sections 307, 323, 504 i. P. C. At the tie the charge was being framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that case under Section 323, 324, 504 i. P. C. was made out and not under Section 307 I. P. C. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, allowed the prayer of the accused-opposite parties and discharged them from Section 307 I. P. C. and fixed it for framing charge under Sections 323, 324, 504 I. P. C. and or sending back the record to the Court of c. J. M. , Saharanpur, for proceeding with the trial.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED therefrom Criminal Revision No. 108 of 1997, Smt. Manju Singh v. Tara Chand and Anr. was filed. It was taken up for admission before this Court on 31. 1. 1997 and 22. 1. 1998 was fixed for admission. It could not be taken up and 18. 2. 1998 was fixed in the supplementary cause list. Ultimately it found place in the cause list of 16. 8. 2000. On 16. 8. 2000 list was revised. None appeared for the revisionist Manju Singh. This Court passed the order as below:

"honble B. K. Rathi, J. List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist. Sri H. N. Sharma is present the opposite party. I have perused the order, I do not find any illegality in the order. The revision has not been admitted. It is dismissed. Dt/- 16. 8. 2000 (Initial of the Judge)"

( 8 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that. once the revision has been dismissed there is no provision to restore it. Besides it this case was not only dismissed in default but it was considered on merit 2nd this Court found no illegality in the impugned or