vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.59 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.59 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.59 OF 2007 Valerian D’souza ... Petitioner V/s. Salvador Manvel D’souza & Anr. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2007 Rev.Fr.Philip D’souza & anr. ... Petitioner V/s. Salvador Manvel D’souza & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Prakash Naik for Petitioner Mr.S.B. Shetye for Respondent No.1 Mr.H.J. Dedhia, APP, for State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 25, 2008 JUNE 25, 2008 JUNE 25, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitions have been filed to challenge the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg in criminal revision application Nos.18 of 2006 and 20 of 2006 directed against the order passed by the JMFC, Oros issuing process against the petitioner in criminal case Nos.1 of 2006 and 2 of 2006. The Sessions Court has held that the order issuing process is not revisable since it is an interlocutory order. This view of the Sessions Court is unsustainable in view of the catena of judgments of both the Supreme Court and this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court in V.K. Jain & Ors. : 2 : v/s. Pratap V. Padode & Anr. (Criminal Application (Criminal Application (Criminal Application No.550 of 2005 decided on 21.6.2005 No.550 of 2005 decided on 21.6.2005 No.550 of 2005 decided on 21.6.2005 and DSQ Holdings Ltd. & Ors. v/s. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2005(2) Bom.C.R. 2005(2) Bom.C.R. 2005(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 202 (Cri.) 202 (Cri.) 202 has held that a revision is maintainable against the order issuing process. 2. In this view of the matter, the order dated 7.12.2006 of the Sessions Court, Sindhudurg is quashed and set aside. The revision application Nos.18 of 2006 and 20 of 2006 are restored to file. These applications shall be disposed of expeditiously and in any event within two months from today.