IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5605 of 2009 ASHVINI KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 14.5.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the Opposite Party is present. This application has been preferred by the accused no. 1 in complaint case No. 843(C) of 2008 against the order in Cr. Revision No. 636 of 2008 which upset the order of the Magistrate dated 26.8.2008 rejecting the complainant’s petition to call for the original partition deed in pursuance of an application preferred by the complainant under Section 91 of the Cr. P.C. On going through the order of the Magistrate dated 26.8.2008 and that of the revisional Court dated 14.1.2009, this court is satisfied that the order of the revisional Court is not sustainable in its present form. If the revisional Court was satisfied that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Magistrate and the reasoning given by him was not in consonance with law the correct procedure to be followed was to set aside and remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the last paragraph of 2 the order dated 14.1.2009 in Cr. Revision No. 636 of 2008, is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna where Complaint Case No. 834(C) of 2008 is pending to consider the application under Section 91 of the Cr. P.C. afresh in light of the discussion contained in the order of the revisional Court. Counsel for the opposite party has produced certified copy of a petition dated 10.11.2009 filed on behalf of the petitioner that after filing of the present application he had reconsidered the matter and had chosen to file the partition deed in compliance of the order of the revisional Court. If that be the correct position in law on facts, the present direction for the Magistrate to reconsider matters shall obviously be rendered infructuous. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)