Crl.M.C. 4/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. BD Goswami, learned counsel for the applicants/1st party. Also heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners / 2nd party in 1 45 CrPC proceeding. The applicant prays for vacation of the interim order dated 11.10.10 passed in C rl. Pet. No.400/10 whereby further proceeding in M.C.No.435/10 in the court of t he learned Additional District Magistrate, Darrang, was stayed by the Court. Mr. BD Goswami, learned counsel submits that the order passed by the learned Mag istrate on 24.9.10 was an order of attachment u/s 146 (1) CrPC and since this wa s an interlocutory order, a revision against the said order would not lie. Mr. Goswami relies upon the decision in the case of Indrapuri Primary Co-operative H ousing Society Ltd. and another -vs- Sri Bhabani Gogoi reported in (1991) 1 GLR 28 in support of his contention. The applicants also contend that the 1st party land owners were mislead into executing a lease Deed on 22.8.03 and only to pro tect their interest, the attachment order was passed by the learned Magistrate. Representing the 2nd party/petitioners, Mr. BM Choudhury, however, reads the att achment order of the Magistrate to show that the 1st party themselves had indica ted that they will approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the lease Deed d ated 22.8.03. By referring to the village meeting dated 5.9.10, Mr. Choudhury s ubmits that the meeting was held in the premises of the HPI Brick field and sinc e it is the 2nd party who are operating the brick field, it is apparent that the y are in possession of the attached land. The learned counsel relies upon a dec ision of this Court in the case of Jesmin Rahman -vs- Afruza Begum & another re ported in 2008(1) GLT 434 to contend that where an interlocutory order even und er 145 CrPC proceeding when substantially affects the rights of the parties, a Revision is maintainable. I find from the impugned order dated 24.9.10 that the 1st party had decided to f ile a suit for cancellation of the lease Deed dated 22.8.03 under which the 2nd party is operating the brick field. As a running business is on, the order of a ttachment passed by a Magistrate affects a substantial rights of the party and i n such circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Magistrate is not revisable because it is interlocutory in nature. It is further seen that in the later judgment of this Court in Jesmin Rahman(sup ra), the earlier judgment in Indrapuri Primary Co-operative Housing Society Ltd . (supra) was referred to and even than the Court held that an order passed in 145 CrPC affecting valuable rights of the parties, cannot be treated as interloc utory order. Considering the above and having regard to the facts in the instant case, I see no ground to recall the interim order passed by this Court on 11.10.2010. Consequently, this misc. case stands rejected.