JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. Oral :- This revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) is directed against the order dated 5.10.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code for grant of permission to file certain documents and call certain witnesses in additional evidence on the plea that these documents could not be placed on record by the police inadvertently in Sessions Trial No.21- ST/7 of 2000, has been dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The most material legal question involved in the matter is regarding the maintainability of the present revision petition. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code provides that the powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, and trial 6r other proceedings. 5. An interlocutory order is one which is passed at some intermediate stage of a proceeding generally to advance the cause of justice for the final determination of the case. The rejection of an application for summoning a particular document/witness as in this case, is not a final and conclusive order and is purely an interlocutory order which did not decide the matter finally between the parties. Therefore, a revision petition against the impugned order is not maintainable in view of the bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code. 6. As a result, this revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Cr.M.P.No.47of2001 In view of the dismissal of the revision petition, this applicaton has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.