Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—An application seeking recall of the order dated 7.3.2013 passed by this Court in aforesaid criminal revision has been filed by the applicants who are accused/opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in this revision.

2. Heard Mr. Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 on recall application and perused the record.

3. In the affidavit accompanying the recall application, the applicants have stated that the instant criminal revision was listed on 7.3.2013 at Sl. No. 7 in Court No. 25. The counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 was on his legs in Court No. 19 where the arguments were going on. After completing the arguments the counsel immediately rushed to Court No. 25 where he found that the order in the instant criminal revision had already been dictated. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 made a request to Court to hear him also. He also informed the Court that one more Criminal Revision Defective No. 457 of 2008 (now regular number has been allotted as Criminal Revision No. 3385 of 2008) (Ramesh Chandra Goyal v. State of U.P.) arising out of same order dated 6.10.2008 is pending before this Court in which interim order in favour of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 is in existence but the Court did not pay any heed to the request.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that when the fact about the pendency of one more criminal revision against the same impugned order was informed to this Court within 5 minutes of passing of the order dated 7.3.2013 and much before it was signed and uploaded, this Court should have given opportunity of hearing to the applicants. It was also incumbent upon the Court to hear both the revision together for avoiding two different opinions against the same order on the same issue.

5. On the aforesaid grounds it has been prayed that the order dated 7.3.2013 which is on the face of it, an ex parte order, passed in violation of principle of natural justice without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicants, be recalled and the instant criminal revision be decided afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicants alongwith connected Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 457 of 2008 (now Criminal Revision No. 3385 of 2008).

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the revisionist with averments that the applicants, who are opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the instant criminal revision were involved in a case under Section 420 readwith 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. They pleaded guilty and on that basis the Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad convicted them on 22.9.2004. Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 2004 was filed by the accused persons against the judgment and order dated 22.9.2004 in the Court of Special Judge (C.B.I.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghzaiabad which was disposed of and the matter was remanded to the trial Court vide order dated 6.10.2008 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Ghaziabad. Both parties i.e. C.B.I. And accused persons challenged the aforesaid order dated 6.10.2008 by means of two different revisions namely Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2009 and Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 457 of 2008. vide order dated 7.3.2013 (which is sought to be recalled by means of present recall application) this Court allowed the Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2009 filed by C.B.I. Ex parte, thereby quashing the order dated 6.10.2008 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Ghaziabad and remanding the matter back to Special Judge, C.B.I. for reconsideration.

7. Sri N.I. Jafri appearing for the C.B.I. has vehemently argued that now the insatant revision has been finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7.3.2013 and as such this Court has become “functus officio”. Sri Jafri has raised a preliminary objection with regard to