Vinod Shanker Dave, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 22nd March, 1984, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by Shri Anand Singh and upheld the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Data Ramgarh, dated 19-9-1983 in a matter regarding disposal of property under Section 457 Cr.PC.
2. The whole controversey centres round the application under Section 457 read with Section 451 Cr.PC dated 12-8-1983. An application on this very subject matter had been dismissed on 30-5-1983. When this later application was filed the learned counsel for non-petitioner wrote on the back of the application that he has no objection if the property is handed over to petitioner on a supardginama and the learned Magistrate on 19-8-1983 ordered the delivery of property to petitioner.
3. On 24-8-1983 the non-petitioner moved an application that order dated 19-8-1983 be cancelled. On this application the learned Magistrate after hearing parties restored his order dated 30-5-1983 vide order dated 19-9-1983. The learned Magistrate held that counsel for non-petitioner acted contrary to interest of his own client. This order was challenged in revision but without any success and, therefore, this application under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed.
4. It is contended in his petition that findings of the courts below that lawyer showed his negligence and contrary to the interest of his client are not based on any evidence and there was no illegality in the order dated 12-8-1983.
5. On the other hand it is submitted by the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 that his counsel acted without his instructions and he did so in collusion with other side. His submission was that on 8-8-1983 the case was listed and on 29-8-1983 there was no occasion in between to have moved an application for handing over the property and the entire proceedings in respect of this application is sham.
6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the entire record. Both the courts below, rightly agreed with the contention of respondent No. 2, and directed that the order dated 19-8-1983 has no force of law. and the property be handed over back to S.H.O. in pursuance of order dated 30-5-1983. After the case was argued for some time the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would have been better had the notice been given to the non-petitioner, Nathulal before the application dated 12-8-1983 was decided on merits and the court should not have acted only because no objection had been written by the counsel for Nathulal, in a guarded language. In view of the submission of the learned counsel, which in my opinion, is a correct stand in the circumstances of the ease the order calls for no interference in this petition. However, I am of the opinion that even if the order dated 19-8-1983 is set-aside, the application dated 12-8-1983 still remains alive and should be adjudicated after notice to Nathulal, non-petitioner.
7. Consequently, I dismiss the application and direct the parties to appear before the trial court on 3-6-1985 and the trial court is directed to dispose of the application on its own merits as well as expedite the proceedings in the main case. It will be open to the trial court to defer the decision on the application in case it is of the opinion that the entire case is coming to a close. The application is accordingly disposed of.