GEORGE CHERIAN Vs. JOY CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision petitioner is the respondent in proceedings No.A3 -2687 dated 4/5/2013 on the files of the Revenue Divisional Officer,Moovattupuzha.This revision petition is filed challenge Annexure -A order dated 4/5/2013 directing the revision petitioner to reconstruct the canal allegedly obstructed by the revision petitioner.The 1st respondent has entered appearance and filed a preliminary objection contending that this revision petition is not maintainable under Sec.397(2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned counsel submits that the impugned order under challenge is an order passed under Sec.133 Cr.P.C.Going by the impugned order,it is seen that the order does not mention the section under which the impugned order has been passed.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that though the impugned order does not mention the section under which it is passed,no order preceded Annexure -A order was passed.The revision petitioner has not filed any objection or counter before the R.D.O.prior to the impugned order.However,going by the impugned order itself,it could be seen that it is a preliminary order purportedly passed under Sec.133 Cr.P.C.Undoubtedly,a revision will not lie against an order passed under Sec.133 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the impugned order is one passed under Sec.133 Cr.P.C.and the proceedings are still going on.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also admits that proceedings are going on.Nevertheless,I am not going to consider this revision petition on merits.Since the revision petition is not maintainable under law,I dismiss this revision petition in limine and the 3rd respondent is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and pass final order under Sec.138 C.P.C.The 3rd respondent shall complete the proceedings and pass final order within a period of two months. This revision petition is dismissed.