ash 1 crwp-2068.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2068 OF 2010 Suresh Devshi Chheda. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri Niranjan Mundargi i/by Shri H.H. Nagi for the Petitioner. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. Shri S. Shinghrani for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. In the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Code” ) filed by the Petitioner, an order was passed on 7th September, 2009 which reads thus: - “Application is allowed. The Applicant is entitled for possession of the property i.e. land bearing CST No.571 & 571/10 alongwith structure till disposal of present matter. The respondents are directed to hand over the possession of the property i.e. land bearing CST No. 571 & 571/10 alongwith structure to the applicant.” ash 2 crwp-2068.10 2. A Revision Application under Section 397 of the said Code was filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court by the impugned order has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and has remanded the proceedings to the learned Magistrate with a direction to proceed in accordance with law. 3. The Sessions Court observed that without there being any preliminary order, by way of interim order, the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were ordered to be dispossessed. The Revisional Court came to the conclusion that the entire order was illegal as it was in the nature of the interim order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that after passing the preliminary order, the learned Magistrate passed the final order on 7th September, 2009. He submitted that only because of certain wrong phraseology used in the impugned order, the Sessions Court has come to the conclusion that the order was in the nature of interim order. He submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate was a final order. 5. I have considered the submissions. Not only that the operative part of the order dated 7th September, 2009 records that the Petitioner is entitled to possession till the disposal of the main matter, ash 3 crwp-2068.10 but in Paragraph 11 of the said order, the learned Magistrate has observed that it was necessary to pass a preliminary order restoring the possession to the Petitioner. 6. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Sessions Court as regards the illegality committed by the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted with. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the order directing the learned Magistrate to decide the proceedings under Section 145 of the said Code in accordance with law and thus all questions on merits have been kept open. Hence, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. The Petition is rejected. However, all contentions of the parties on merits in the pending proceedings are kept open. ( A.S. OKA, J )