1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1372 OF 2010 Shri O. P. Taneja & Anr. ..Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents None for Applicants. Mr. K. V. Saste - APP for Respondent No. 1 - State. Ms. Daisy Damania - Respondent No. 2 present in person. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : APRIL 05, 2010. P.C. : 1. Though the matter is called out twice, none appears for applicants. The respondent no. 2 appears in person. 2. The limited ground on which the present application came to be entertained by this court was that the order impugned in the present application dated 8th October 2008 came to be passed without issuing any notice to the applicants. The respondent no. 2, who appears in person makes a statement that she has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned revisional court for deciding her 2 revision in accordance with law after hearing the parties. 3. The apex court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. [(2002) 2 SCC 363] has held that the revisional court cannot pass order adversely affecting the rights of the party without issuing notice to the party and without giving opportunity of being heard the said party. 4. In that view of the matter order dated 8th October 2008 in Criminal Revision Application No. 387 of 2008 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned revisional court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. The learned revisional court is further directed to decide the revision filed by the present respondent no. 2 within a period of two months from today. The parties to appear before the learned revisional court on 20th April, 2010. Application disposed of with the above directions. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)