ORAL ORDER

1. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directed against the order passed by the earned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Criminal Revision Application No.105 of 2016, whereby, by order dated 12.12.2017, the revision application preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed as neither the petitioner nor his advocate remained present, and their stage was closed and the matter was decided ex-parte; hence, the present application.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.V.M. Mansuri for the applicant, submitted that initially the present applicant had preferred an application under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kapadwanj, being Criminal Revision Application No.131 of 2016, which came to be rejected by the learned trial Court by judgment dated 23.08.2016. The same was challenged by the present petitioner before the Sessions Court, Nadiad, vide Criminal Revision Application No.105 of 2016. It is submitted that the Rojkam of the proceedings has already been produced, which reflects that the advocate was not present only on two occasions, and in absence of the learned advocate for the applicant, the learned Sessions Court proceeded ex parte and dismissed the revision application. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Nadiad, is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the Sessions Court to decide the same afresh on merits.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Javed S. Qureshi for respondent No.2 submitted that he has no objection if the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to decide the case afresh on merits.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr.Dhawan Jayswal submitted that this is a dispute between private parties and, therefore, necessary orders may be passed.

5. Heard learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent. It appears from the record that merely on two occasions the learned advocate for the applicant did not remain present before the Court, and therefore the learned Sessions Court proceeded ex parte and dismissed the Criminal Revision Application preferred by the applicant-wife. Hence, this petition requires consideration.

6. In the result, the following order is passed: the present Special Criminal Revision Application (Quashing) No.3657 of 2018 is hereby allowed. The judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Criminal Revision Application No.105 of 2016 dated 12.12.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Court at Kapadwanj.

7. The Criminal Revision Application No.105 of 2016 is ordered to be restored to file, and the Sessions Court, Kapadwanj, shall decide the same afresh on merits, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.

8. Direct service is permitted.