1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1907 OF 2008 Dilip C. Mutha ...Petitioner. v. M/s. Kumar Constructions & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Vasant D. Raut, adv. For the Petitioner. Mr.R.Laxman i/by M/s.M.V.Kini & Co. adv. For the Respondent Nos.6 and 7. Shri S.N.Gawade, APP for the Respondent No.8. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondent nos.1 to 7. It was registered as RCC 213/07. The learned Judicial Magistrate issued process only accused nos.1 to 5 but refused to issue process against the accused nos.6 and 7. That order was challenged by the petitioner in the Revision Application No.522/07. Revision Application was rejected by the Sessions Court and for that purpose, Sessions Court relied upon certain documents produced by the respondents/accused nos.6 and 7. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Sessions Court had not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the documents which were 2 filed by the respondent nos.6 and 7 long after the arguments were over . According to him, this has caused injustice. 2 On perusal of the roznama of the Sessions Court in Revision Application No.522/07, it appears that on 5.1.2008 arguments on behalf of the revision applicant were advanced and the matter was adjourned for hearing the arguments for the other side. Matter was adjourned several times and from 16.2.2008 counsel for both the parties absent on a number occasions. On 9.4.2008, advocate for the respondent nos.6 and 7 produced certain documents alongwith the list. Thereafter, matter was adjourned from time to time and in May, 2008, advocate for the respondents were absent and the matter was reserved for orders. After about 3 adjournments , impugned order was passed on 12.6.2008, Impugned order clearly shows that the Sessions Court had heavily relied upon documents, which were produced by the respondent nos.6 and 7 on 9.4.2008. After that the matter was never heard. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner were completed on 5.1.2008. It indicates that the documents filed by the respondents 6 and 7 were relied upon for rejecting revision application but the revision applicants were not given opportunity of hearing on those documents. In view of these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the impugned order can not 3 sustain. Hence, the following order: i Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Revision Application No.522/07 is hereby remanded back to the Sessions Court, Pune with the direction to hear the parties afresh and to dispose off the revision application on its own merits. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)