CANARA BANK, SIVAKASI BRANCH THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THEPRESENT Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputtur dated 15.06.2010 returning a petition filed by the revision petitioner under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 pointing out certain defects and also raising the question of maintainability. Sub clause 2 of Section 397 Cr.P.C provides a bar for the exercise of revisional powers of the High Court or the Sessions Court in respect of interlocutory orders. An order returning the petition pointing out certain defects and questioning the maintainability cannot be stated to be a final order or not an interlocutory order. It is very much in the nature of interlocutory order, in so far as there is scope for the petitioner to re-present the same rectifying the defects or stating that the alleged defects pointed out are not at all defects. Even regarding the question of maintainability, the petitioner can state how the petition is maintainable and re-present the same with a prayer for posting the petition for hearing regarding maintainability, if the court is not satisfied with the contention of the petitioner as to the maintainability of the petition and thus, can invite an order regarding the maintainability of the petition. Without doing the same, the petitioner Bank has chosen to rush to this court by way of the present Criminal Revision Case. This court is of the considered view that the present Criminal Revision Case is clearly barred by section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case deserves to be dismissed.