JUDGMENT Augustine George Masih, J.:- The only contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present revision petition is that the order dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phillaur under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an inter-locatory order and, therefore, revision petition against the same was not maintainable before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The entertainment of the said revision petition and the consequent order setting aside order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, in a revision petition preferred by the respondents is illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kartar Singh and others vs. Smt.Pritam Kaur 1984 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 617, wherein this Court has held that order of attachment of an immovable property under Section 146 (1) of the Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order which is temporary in nature and no revision against the same is maintainable. On the basis of this contention, counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, be set aside. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that even the present revision petition would not be maintainable as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, would again be an interlocutory order as the basis for not having the jurisdiction with the Additional Sessions Judge would apply to the present revision petition as well. He submits that the present revision petition on the same premises would not be maintainable as has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them at the Bar. In the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kartar Singh’s case (supra), there can be no element of doubt that the revision petition preferred by the respondents before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar was not maintainable as the same was against an order which was inherently temporary in nature. In the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kartar Singh’s case (supra), there can be no element of doubt that the revision petition preferred by the respondents before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar was not maintainable as the same was against an order which was inherently temporary in nature. The only remedy available to the respondents, if they wanted to challenge the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phillaur, was to prefer a petition before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The remedy of revision chosen by the respondents is not available to them as no revision petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, cannot be sustained. 5. The present revision petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge will also not be maintainable before this Court on the same premises but this Court at the same time, cannot shut its eyes to an illegality which has apparently occurred by exercise of powers by a Subordinate Court which powers it could not have exercised under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, to give effect to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, exercising the inherent powers conferred upon this Court, the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dated 22.5.2008 is hereby set aside in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kartar Singh’s case (supra) treating this revision petition as a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ---------------