Short Note : 1. The applicants were being prosecuted for offences under sections 452, 332 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code by the police in the Court, of trial Magistrate. The applicant Madanlal filed a complaint arising out of the same incident against the police officers for offences punishable under sections 308, 325, 148, 34 and 149 I.P.C., which was also pending before the same Magistrate. According to the applicants, the police officers who were accused in the complaint case, were creating obstacles and did not allow the case to make much progress and on the other hand the police officers could succeed in getting the evidence recorded in the; present case and the case was closed for Judgment. The applicants moved an application that the pronouncement of the judgment be postponed till the evidence in the complaint case was fully recorded. The trial Magistrate dismissed the application. The learned Sessions Judge also rejected the application on the ground that no revision lies against an interlocutory order. Held : The learned Sessions Judge committed a serious error in holding that no revision lies against an interlocutory order and rejecting the revision. The case was pending when the new Code came into force. As such, the trial will be governed by the provisions of the old Code and not by the new Code in view of section 484 (2). Dhruvnath Singh v. Shivnaresh, 1976 JLJ 319, (DB) relied on. Chironjilal Ramjibhai and Co. v. Chunarmal, 1976 MPLJ 33 dissented from. 2. There is no provision in the Code to the procedure to be followed in cross cases. Each case has to be decided on its own fact; But it is well settled that as far as practicable, the counter cases have to be tried by the same Judge, they have to be tried simultaneously one after another and judgment should not be pronounced until both the cases are beard Keeping in view this principle the trial Magistrate should have allowed the application of the applicants and postponed the delivery of the judgment in the present case till evidence was completed in the counter case. Mithulal v. State of M.P. AIR 1975 SC 149 , referred to Revision allowed.