JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 14.3.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bayana (for short 'the revisional court') whereby hre quashed and set-aside the order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Roopbas. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners made a complaint under section 145 Cr.P.C. to the SHO, P.S. Uchchain District Bharatpur regarding the land in dispute. The police on the basis of this complaint registered a criminal case No. 221/2004, for the offence under sections 143, 447, 341, 427 and 336 IPC. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a complaint for appointment of receiver. 3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 8.7.2005 appointed S.H.O. Uchchain as Receiver. 4. The respondents being aggrieved with the order dated 8.7.2005 preferred a criminal revision petition before the revisional Court. 5. The revisional court after hearing quashed and set-aside the order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the S.D.M., vide his order dated 14.3.2007. 6. Thus, the petitioners being aggrieved with the order impugned dated 14.3.2007 have preferred instant revision petition before this Court. 7. Mr. Singodiya, counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional court has passed the impugned judgment without considering the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the S.D.M. appointed the Receiver without properly appreciating the material made available to him. The land in dispute is ancestral property of petitioners and the respondents are trying to make encroachment over the aforesaid land. The revisional court has failed to consider that against interlocutory order no revision lies. Thus, the impugned judgment dated 14.3.2007 passed by the revisional court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 8. Mr. D.D. Sharma, PP assisted by Mr. Paliwal, controverted the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the revisional court has rightly passed the judgment impugned. 9. From the bare perusal of the entire material made available to me it is clear that the revisional court has passed the impugned judgment after taking into consideration all the material which was made available to him. 10. In the result, this criminal revision petition Is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Revision Dismissed. *******