1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.36 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2009 Shailesh H. Bajaj ... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & another. ... Respondents The Applicant in person. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State/Respondent No.1. Ms. Seema Patil i/b M/s. Parab & Associates for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1 Applicant appears in person. Heard advocate for the second respondent. Rule. Advocate for the second respondent waives service. 2 By the impugned order the Revision Application preferred by the applicant for challenging the order of issue process has been rejected by the Sessions Court. When the Revision Application was heard by the Sessions Court, the 2 advocates appearing for the applicant and second respondent were absent. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has no objection if the revision application is restored and is ordered to be heard afresh. 3 Hence, I pass following order: (i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Revision Application preferred by the applicant is restored. (iii) The Revision Application be heard and decided afresh in accordance with law. JUDGE