IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10734 of 2008 RAMCHHATRI MISHRA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 23.04.2010 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.1.2008 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran in Criminal Revision No. 1/2005 setting aside the order dated 16.12.2004 of the SDM Narkatiaganj in Case No. 1537 of 2001. A 144 Cr.P.C. Proceeding was converted into 145 Cr.P.C. Followed by attachment under Section 146 (I) Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed an application under Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C. And the court below declared his possession. The second party preferred Cr. Revision No. 1 of 2005 which has set asisde the order under Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the criminal revision was filed the petitioner therein was deceased. Therefore there was no occasion for the revisional court to pass any order on the dead man’s application. It is acknowledged that a substitution application was pending and which had not been disposed off. Therefore the petitioner was under the impression that till the substitution application is not disposed he is not required to file his reply to the revision application. Once a substitution application was pending and both sides have appeared and heard before the revisional court thereafter, a fact evident from the recitals in the order, the substitution application is deemed to have been allowed. This Court on perusal of Para 5 of the impugned order is satisfied that the revisional court has set aside the order under Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C. not on merits but more on propriety and non-compliance of procedure before passing of the order. This application does not even implead the substituted heirs as opposite parties. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)