JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 3.2.2009. 2. A petition under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.PC.') was moved and thereupon an ex-parte interim order was passed on 18.7.2008 appointing receiver. After passing of the order, notices were issued to the other party, who thereupon put their appearance before the Court below. Without agitating matter before Sub Divisional Officer, a revision petition was filed challenging the order dated 18.7.2008 and accordingly revisional Court set aside the order. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that revision petition was not maintainable as it was not against an interlocutory order. The facts further reveal that issue as raised before revision Court, could have been agitated before Sub Divisional Officer where the original case is pending. However, non-petitioner taken up matter before the revisional Court though on 19.8.2008 they sought time to file reply. Prayer is accordingly to set aside the order of revisional Court. 4. Learned counsel for non-petitioner, on the other hand, submits that petition under Section 145 of the Cr.PC. was not even maintainable, thus they had rightly approached the revisional Court. Matter regarding same property is pending before the Civil Court where interim order exists, but in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.PC., contrary order has been passed. Thus, they were left with no option but to approach the revisional Court. In view of the aforesaid, revisional Court has rightly passed the order impugned, which needs to be upheld by this Court. It is further submitted that if this petition is allowed, then petitioner may be given a liberty to raise all the issues before Sub Divisional Officer as otherwise raised before the revisional Court. A further direction may be given to decide the matter within a period of one month. Till matter is decided, position as obtaining today. may be maintained by both parties. 5. I have considered submissions of both the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 6. Perusal of the order dated 18.7.2008 shows that it was an ex-parte order appointing receiver. On 19.8.2009 non-petitioner put his appearance in the Court and sought time to file reply. After that, revision petition was filed to challenge ex-parte order. 5. I have considered submissions of both the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 6. Perusal of the order dated 18.7.2008 shows that it was an ex-parte order appointing receiver. On 19.8.2009 non-petitioner put his appearance in the Court and sought time to file reply. After that, revision petition was filed to challenge ex-parte order. In my opinion, non-petitioner should have agitated the matter before Sub Divisional Officer instead of taking it before revisional Court as order dated 18.7.2008 was only an interim order. In any ease, I am of the view that while revisional order is set aside, Non-petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the issues before Sub Divisional Officer as otherwise raised in the petition. In that case, Sub Divisional Officer will decide the matter within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till matter is decided, parties would maintain status as obtaining today.In view of aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.Petition Disposed of as Above. *******