IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16747 of 2008 1. RAM BINOD SINGH 2. SMT. SANGEETA SINGH 3. NAWEEN KUMAR SINGH @ NAWEEN KUMAR ----PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAKESH KUMAR 3. VYAS PRASAD SINGH ---OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 05. 19.07.2010 Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 08.04.2008 passed by learned 9thAdditional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Revision no. 182 of 2003. By the said order the revision preferred by the petitioners herein was rejected and the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate East Muzaffarpur, in proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been affirmed. It appears the dispute had arisen over use of a particular tract of land as private road and construction of septic tank/garage made thereon by the petitioners herein. A police report was called for which indicated that the petitioners had forcibly constructed septic tank/garage on the side of the plot which was used as „Rasta’ by the purchasers. It was thus found to be „Rasta’ used by public which was obstructed by construction. Aggrieved by the order of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate petitioners filed a criminal revision application which has been considered and rejected by the impugned order. Contention of the petitioners is that without any proper 2 notice the matter was decided by the first court. The revisional court on a consideration of materials placed on record has come to the conclusion that the petitioners had full knowledge of the proceeding. This is what the revisional Court has observed in the order: “….From perusal of the service report, this much is crystal clear that the petitioners have got the knowledge regarding the case and the revision petition has been filed on 3.11.03 against the impugned order dated 15.7.03 that is after expiry of period of limitation. As such this Cr. Revision is hit by law of limitation. There is no convincing and plausible explanation for the delay in filing of this Cr. Revision…..” On a consideration of the materials available on record, this court does not find any illegality and /or infirmity in the order impugned meriting interference. The application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)