JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The appellant/writ petitioner has preferred the present writ appeals as against the common order dated 10.01.2013 in WP.SR.Nos.134562 and 134559 of 2012. 2. The Learned Single Judge while passing the order in WP.SR.Nos.134562 and 134559 of 2012, dated 10.1.2013, has inter alia observed that "the objection raised by the Registry is sustainable as the petitioner's prayer to quash the orders dated 19.03.2012 were already challenged by the petitioner by filing Crl.R.C.No.369 of 2012 before this Court and this Court by order dated 09.10.2012 dismissed Crl.R.C. by stating several reasons." and resultantly dismissed the writ petitions by sustaining the objections raised by the Registry and also finding that the writ petitions filed by the Appellant / Petitioner are not maintainable. 3. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 10.01.2013, passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP.SR.Nos.134562 and 134559 of 2012, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Petitioner submits that the Learned Single Judge passed the order dated 10.01.2013 dismissing the writ petitions as not maintainable is not correct in law. 4. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner urged before this Court that the Revision Petitions filed earlier have been dismissed on the ground of maintainability and, if the Revisions are not maintainable under Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "Cr.P.C."), then the petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, prayed for allowing the writ appeals. 5. At this stage, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1980 CRL.L.J.690(1) (V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I.,) to the effect that the impugned order dated 19.3.2012 passed earlier, which is involved in Crl.R.C.Nos.369 & 376 of 2012, is only an 'intermediate' order and, based on the said observation of the Supreme Court, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent that as against the intermediate order, the writ petitions are maintainable before the Learned Single Judge. 6. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, he has filed Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2007 under Section 233 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C., and Crl.M.P.No.137 of 2007 under Section 233 read with 91 Cr.P.C., and, the trial court has dismissed the said petitions. According to him, as the rights of the accused, viz., the Appellant / Petitioner are affected, the Revisions are perfectly maintainable. According to him, as the rights of the accused, viz., the Appellant / Petitioner are affected, the Revisions are perfectly maintainable. He also takes a stand that notwithstanding the fact that in the earlier round the Revision Petitions have been dismissed by this Court, yet in order to have a remedy, the Appellant / Petitioner has filed the writ petitions before this Court to call for the records in Crl.M.P.Nos.136 & 137 of 2007 in S.C.No.77 of 1992, on the file of the learned Ist Addl. Subordinate & Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and to quash the order dated 19.03.2012. 7. The Registry in regard to the maintainability of W.P.SR.Nos.134559 & 134562 of 2012, has returned the case papers to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Petitioner for the following clarifications:- "1. It may be stated how these writ petitions are maintainable under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, since the alternative remedy is available before the appropriate forum. 2. Cause title needs revision regarding R-2 in both petitions. 3. Stay Prayer needs revision in both petitions. 4. 2nd Petitioner arrayed as party Respondent may be clarified." 8. To the clarifications sought for by the Registry as stated supra, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Petitioner made the following endorsement in WP.SR.No.134562 of 2012:- "The writ petition is maintainable, since the petition filed for examination of prosecution witness and production of documents is denied by the trial court. It is denial of natural justice. The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Hence the writ is maintainable." 9. In WP.SR.No.134559 of 2012, he has made the following endorsement:- "The writ petition is maintainable under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, since the petition filed for cross examination of prosecution witness is denied. It is denial of natural justice. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability." 10. In spite of the endorsement made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Petitioner, the Registry has entertained a doubt in regard to maintainability of the writ petitions and accordingly the matter has been posted before the Learned Single Judge for maintainability. 11. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability." 10. In spite of the endorsement made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Petitioner, the Registry has entertained a doubt in regard to maintainability of the writ petitions and accordingly the matter has been posted before the Learned Single Judge for maintainability. 11. The Learned Single Judge has dismissed WP.SR.No.134559 & 134562 of 2012 holding that "as the petitioner has availed the remedy by filing revision and invited an order from this court, the writ petitions filed challenging the very same order is not maintainable. Therefore, the objection raised by the Registry is sustained." 12. The term "interlocutory order is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. However, in the new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397(2) prohibits any exercise of powers of revision in interlocutory orders. Indeed, Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. keeps such orders outside the purview of Revision so that enquiry may proceed without delay. 13. It is to be borne in mind that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 [Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam] has clearly held that the orders passed by the trial court on application filed under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C., are interlocutory in nature and revision of such orders by the High Court is barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Further more, in the decision reported in (2000) 6 SCC 195 [K.K. Patel and another v. State of Gujarat and another], it is clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "11. That apart, the view of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court that no revision was maintainable on account of the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Code, is clearly erroneous. It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable." (Emphasis added) 14. The decision in V.C. Shukla's case, which was strongly relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Petitioner, is explained away in the aforesaid decision as the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage and the feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings. 15. Apart from the aforesaid decisions, we deem it appropriate to point out that in AIR 1977 SC 2185 (Amarnath v. State of Haryana) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the orders passed in the interlocutory application is interim or temporary in nature. Interlocutory order or interim order is only transitory in nature and it will not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties concerned. 16. We also aptly point out that the decision rendered in 2005 Crl.L.J. 287 (Sanjay and another v. State of Haryana and another), by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the same line, which is to the effect that an order made under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses is an interlocutory order. Even summoning the additional witnesses is also an interlocutory order in our considered view and, therefore, the Revision is not per se maintainable. 17. That apart, in the decision reported in AIR 1965 Madras 539 (Ahilandammal v. S. Balasubramania Iyer), AIR 1967 Madras 351 (In re, Chinnappa and another) and AIR 1968 SC 1444 (R.H. Bhutani v. Mani J. Desai), it has been clearly held that 'as against an interlocutory order, no revision is maintainable'. 18. It is to be noted that in the decision in the decision Pannalal Lahoti v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1954 Hyd 129 [FB]) at P.130 (under the old Criminal Procedure Code, 1898), it is held thus:- "193. . . . 18. It is to be noted that in the decision in the decision Pannalal Lahoti v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1954 Hyd 129 [FB]) at P.130 (under the old Criminal Procedure Code, 1898), it is held thus:- "193. . . . Sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. authorise interference by the High Court even in a pending criminal case on the ground of illegality of procedure or harassment of the accused by an unjustified application of illegal procedure, but the power in that behalf is exercised sparingly and in cases of exceptional character." 19. Also, we point out that in the decision B.R.V. Satyanarayana v. The State (1977 CRL.L.J. 1038), it is held as follows:- "6. . . . Even a summary dismissal at the admission stage of a revision case after due hearing of the petitioner or his counsel is as much a dismissal after full hearing and the order having been pronounced and signed by the Judge, the same cannot be altered or reviewed in view of the express prohibition contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 20. Further more, in the decision Kanhaiya Lal v. Empweror through Mohan Sarogi (A.I.R. (29) 1942 Allahabad 148 FB), it is laid down that "it is not the practice of the High Court to take evidence in revision applications and therefore the parties should not in the anxiety to quash proceedings at the earliest possible stage, bring revision applications before the High Court before the facts have been fully ascertained. Especially in cases involving the question of jurisdiction under Section 181 Cr.P.C., it is desirable that facts should be fully ascertained and the question of law involved should be dealt with in the regular way in the first instance as part of the trial, before the remedy by way of revision is resorted to." 21. As far as the present case is concerned, the Appellant / Petitioner along with one Mr. Duraisamy as Petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.369 & 376 of 2012 have approached this Court questioning the correctness of the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.136 & 137 of 2003, dated 19.03.2012 by the lower court and, this Court, ultimately, on 9.10.2012, in the aforesaid Revision Petitions has come to a resultant conclusion that the said order passed by the trial court is only an interlocutory order and, therefore, the Criminal Revision Cases are not maintainable, both in law and on merits. As a matter of fact, the common order passed in Crl. R.C. Nos. 369 & 372 of 2012, dt. 9.10.2012 passed between the inter se parties has become final, conclusive and it is binding on them. Moreover, the Appellant / Petitioner has not taken any further proceedings as an aggrieved person before the higher forum in regard to the orders passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.369 & 376 of 2012, dt.9.10.2012. As such, the appellant is estopped in questioning the order passed in Crl.R.C.Nos.369 & 372 of 2012, dt. 9.10.2012 through writ petitions. 22. After exhausting the remedies available under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Appellant / Petitioner is now making an otiose endeavour to indulge in fishing expedition of invoking writ jurisdiction, challenging the orders dated 19.3.2012 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.136 & 137 of 2007 in S.C.No.77 of 1992 in the writ petitions. The Learned Single Judge after going through the entire gamut of the matter and also taking note of the objections raised by the Registry with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions in WP.SR.Nos.134559 and 134562 of 2012, has come to a resultant conclusion that the writ petitions in WP.SR.Nos.134559 and 134562 of 2012 are not maintainable and resultantly sustained the objections raised by the Registry of this Court. In the upshot of detailed discussions as mentioned supra, we are not inclined to take a different view than the one taken by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions in WP.SR.Nos.134559 and 134562 of 2012 on 10.01.2013 (of course for the reasons assigned in these writ appeals). Consequently, the writ appeals also fail and they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.