SANTOSHversusSTATE OF U.P.

                                   [2009] 4 S. C.R. 287


                                       SANTOSH                                 A
                                            V.
                                    STATE OF U.P.
                           Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2009
                                   MARCH 16, 2009
                                                                               B
               [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
                                     JJ.)
         -(
                    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 9 - Revision petition
......        - Dismissal of - By ex-parte order - Recalling of order -
              Denied on the ground that revision was decided on merits - c
              On appeal, held: In view of the fact that various reasons are
              indicated for non-appearance, matter remitted to High Court, -
....          for consideration afresh, on merits.
                   CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
                                                                 D
              No. 470 of 2009
                   From the Judgement and Order dated 27.04.2004 of the
              High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.
              1622 of 1989.
                                                                               E
                   R.D. Upadhyay, S.B. Pandey, fortheAppellant.


..       ~
                   S.G. Hasnain, S.A. Abde, Anil Kumar, for the Respondent.
                   The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
                   DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.                                      F
                   1. Leave granted.
                    2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
              learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing
              the Revision Petitions filed by the appellant. Two revisions G
              petitions were filed and one of them i.e. Criminal Revision
              No.1622 of 1989 was by the appellant. The matter was taken
              up ex-parte and the revision petition was dismissed after
              referring to various aspects. An application for recall was filed
                                           287                                 H
    288       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 4 S.C.R


A   which was dismissed on the ground that the order which was
    sought to be recalled was passed on merits and therefore
    cannot be recalled.
        3. Though many points were urged in support of the
  application it is not necessary to go into those in detail. While
8 issuing notice on 7 .11 .2008 it was indicated that the matter may
  be remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing as the revision
  petition was dismissed in the absence of learned counsel for
  the appellant. During the hearing of the application learned
  counsel for the appellant indicated various reasons for which
C there was non appearance on the day the matter was taken up.
  That being so, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned
  order and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh
  consideration on merits. To avoid unnecessary delay let the          •
  parties appear before the High Court on 24.3.2009 so that a
D date of hearing can be fixed. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the
  High Court is requested to post the matter before an appropriate
  Bench.
                                                                       -
          4. The appeal is allowed.

    K.K.T.                                         Appeal allowed.