Judgment : 1. The Appellant/Third Party has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.224 of 2014 as against the order dated 11.03.2014 in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.82 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 passed by the Learned Special Judge {under TNPID Act, (in F.E.S) 1997}, Chennai. 2. The Appellant/Third Party has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.225 of 2014 as against the order dated 11.03.2014 in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.83 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 passed by the learned Special Judge {under TNPID Act, (in F.E.S) 1997}, Chennai. 3. The trial Court while passing the impugned order in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.82 of 2014 and in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.83 of 2014 in I.A.No.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 on 11.03.2014, in paragraph – 8 had observed the following:- “It is pertinent to mention here that the 3rd respondent in the petition already had been filed I.A.No.129/2005 to evict the encroachers in respect of Survey No.927/1C, 920/1A and 920/B and the same was allowed by this Court after disposal of I.A.No.129/2005., the Collector of Chennai, District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur have not taken any steps to effect the encroachers subsequent to the disposal of the said I.A.No.129/2005, it was informed in the Patta land, the Ambattur tahsildar also produced the list of additional encroachers. Admittedly, the petitioner name has not find place in the encroachers list. This Court has come to the conclusion that after passing of G.O.Ms.No.263 dated 24.02.1999. The properties, which are mentioned in the said G.Os. are in the hands of the revenue authority. So, the revenue authority was directed to remove the encroachers. In view of the order passed in I.A.No.3/2013 dated 27.3.2013 and now the revenue authority has taken steps to remove the encroachers. When O.A.No.12/1999 was pending, this present petitioner had filed I.A.No.15/2007 seeking for the purpose of releasing some of the properties in the said G.Os. But on the other hand, the petitioner has not pursued that application. Hence, the said petition was dismissed for default. This petitioner had knowledge about the attachment of the properties. But the petitioner has not taken any effective steps to raise the attachment, which are mentioned in the petition. But on the other hand, the petitioner has not pursued that application. Hence, the said petition was dismissed for default. This petitioner had knowledge about the attachment of the properties. But the petitioner has not taken any effective steps to raise the attachment, which are mentioned in the petition. Admittedly, as per the documents produced by the petitioner, he is claiming right over the property in Survery Nos.227/1A, 927/1C and 920/C. But in this application, he is claiming that for Survey Nos.925 Part, 920/1 and 925/6. The O.A.No.12/1999 was disposed on merits and further I.A.No.3/2013 was also disposed on merits. The petitioner's name has not shown as a respondent in the said I.A., that the said petition was disposed on merits. Under these circumstances, this present petition is filed to implead the petitioner as a party/respondent in I.A.No.3/2013 dated 27.03.2013 is not maintainable for numbering. This point is ordered accordingly.” and resultantly, rejected the unnumbered petitions. 4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner/Third Party, the trial Court had failed to appreciate that the Appellant/Petitioner had entered into a sale agreement in respect of the property which was the subject matter of the Attachment in the year 2000, after the Special Court had ordered permission to the Accused for entering into such agreement for sale. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner urges before this Court that the trial Court had failed to see that after entering into an agreement to sell a portion of property under the order of Attachment, the Appellant/Petitioner had filed the petition before the Court for depositing sale consideration in regard to 800 sq.ft. of land and in fact, the Appellant/Petitioner had deposited the amount before the Court on 23.01.2001. 6. The specific plea taken on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner is that the trial Court failed to take into consideration that the total sale consideration in regard to the entire land, as agreed under the agreement for sale, was paid to the Second and Third Respondents under a valid receipt. Furthermore, the Appellant was put into possession of the property by the Second and Third Respondents and that the Appellant had constructed superstructure over the property, but unfortunately, these vital aspects were not borne in mind by the trial Court at the time of passing the impugned order. 7. Furthermore, the Appellant was put into possession of the property by the Second and Third Respondents and that the Appellant had constructed superstructure over the property, but unfortunately, these vital aspects were not borne in mind by the trial Court at the time of passing the impugned order. 7. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to project an argument that the trial Court failed to see that the Second and Third Respondents filed an Application before the trial Court for raising the order of Attachment in regard to the entire property. Also that, by the order of the Court, the Attachment over the property was raised, but this fact was not taken into account by the trial Court at the time of passing the impugned order in question. 8. Expatiating his submission, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously contends that the trial Court failed to appreciate that after the order of Attachment was raised by the Special Court, the Second and Third Respondents have filed a petition for removal of encroachment from the Attachment property. Furthermore, it is the plea of the Second and Third Respondents that an encroachment was made subsequent to the order of Attachment and therefore, they are to be removed. 9. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a stand that the trial Court failed to see that the alleged encroacher, viz., the Appellant was not arrayed as party to the Petition and in fact, without issuing notice in the Petition, on the report submitted by the Revenue Officials, the Application/Petition for removal of encroachment was ordered. 10. The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that the Appellant is not an 'encroacher' and in reality, he was put into possession of the property by the Second and Third Respondents under a valid document. However, these important facts were not looked into by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Appellant filed a suit for Specific Performance in respect of sale agreement entered into by the Second and Third Respondents in favour of the Appellant and the suit was dismissed as on the date, the attachment over the property was not raised by the Special Court. Also that, as against the Decree of dismissal of the suit for Specific Performance, the Appellant filed an Appeal and the same is pending for disposal. 12. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that based on the order passed by the trial Court, the Revenue Officials had issued a Public Notice without mentioning the name of the Appellant and on the guise of the order passed by the Special Court, an endeavour is made to remove the Appellant from the possession of the property. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court misconstrued itself in holding that after the order of Attachment passed by the First Respondent dated 24.02.1999, the property is vested in the hands of the Revenue Authorities and therefore, when the encroachments were made after the order of Attachment, they were to be removed and accordingly, passed the order of removal of encroachers. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contends that when the possession of the property was handed over by the Third Respondent to the Appellant in pursuant to the sale agreement, there is no question of Appellant encroaching upon the property. 15. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the trial Court failed to take note of an important fact that Attachment over the property was raised and as per the agreement entered into between the Third Respondent, it was categorically mentioned that after raising the order of Attachment, the sale deed would be executed in favour of the Appellant. 16. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court misconstrued itself in holding that the Appellant is claiming right over the property in different Survey Numbers, which was not included in the Petition for removing the encroachers. 17. In response, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents 1, 4 and 5 contends that in the cause title in Crl.A.Nos.224 and 225 of 2014, the First Respondent is wrongly mentioned as 'Competent Authority, Special Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5' instead of 'The Competent Authority, Collector of Chennai District.' 18. 17. In response, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents 1, 4 and 5 contends that in the cause title in Crl.A.Nos.224 and 225 of 2014, the First Respondent is wrongly mentioned as 'Competent Authority, Special Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5' instead of 'The Competent Authority, Collector of Chennai District.' 18. Proceeding further, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents 1, 4 and 5 brings it to the notice of this Court that in CRP (NPD).No.1828 of 2014 on 30.04.2014, a direction was issued to evict the encroachers before 01.07.2014 as per the orders of the trial Court in I.A.No.1 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2014 in O.A.12 of 1999. 19. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents contends that the lands belonging to the Second Respondent Firm was attached by the State Government under Section 3 of The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.263 dated 24.02.1999 for the non-payment of Depositors' amount in time. Later, the entire amounts payable to the Depositors were paid and that the Attachments were also raised. Moreover, during the Attachment for several years, the lands were under the control of the Revenue Authorities and because of their callous nature and indifferent attitude, lot of persons had encroached a portion of the said land. As such, after the order of Attachment was raised, I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 was filed by the Third Respondent (Managing Partner of the Second Respondent) praying for a direction to the Revenue Authorities to remove the said encroachers and hand over the property to him and in the said Interlocutory Application, the trial Court on 27.03.2013 directed the Revenue Authorities to remove the encroachers. 20. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents brings it to the notice of this Court that since the Revenue Authorities had not complied with the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 dated 27.03.2013, a Contempt Petition I.A.No.1 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 was filed and the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur and the Tahsildar, Ambattur, appeared before the trial Court and took time to comply with the said order. 21. 21. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents proceeds to submit that after the Revenue Authorities filed CRP (NPD).No.1828 of 2014 before this Court for revising the orders passed by the trial Court and when the Revision Petition came up for orders on 30.04.2014 before this Court, the District Revenue Officer and the Tahsildar were present and represented before this Court that because of the Election, they could not remove the encroachers and this Court, after considering the representation made by the aforesaid Revenue Officials, ordered for removal of all the encroachers within a period of two weeks after the Election and to report the same before this Court on 01.07.2014 and as such the order dated 27.03.2013 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 became final. 22. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents contends that the Appellant filed two Petitions I.A.SR.Nos.82 and 83 of 2014 for impleading himself as party in the said I.A.No.3 of 2013 and to set aside the order of eviction passed in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 and the same were dismissed on 11.03.2014. 23. According to the Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents, the trial Court passed those orders appealed against, acting as a Civil Court, and all matters pertaining to the property claims and Attachments would be dealt with by the Special Court only under Civil Procedure Code. In reality, the Petitions I.A.SR.Nos.82 and 83 of 2014 themselves were filed only under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and therefore, the order dated 11.03.2014 is in respect of property right and the said order is of a civil nature. 24. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents refers to Section 7(5) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, which enjoins as follows:- 7. Powers of Special Court (regarding attachment, sale, realisation and distribution) – (1) .... (2) ..... (3) ..... (4) ..... 24. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents refers to Section 7(5) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, which enjoins as follows:- 7. Powers of Special Court (regarding attachment, sale, realisation and distribution) – (1) .... (2) ..... (3) ..... (4) ..... (5) If cause is shown or any objection is made as aforesaid, the Special Court shall proceed to investigate the same, and in so doing, as regards the examinations of the parties and in all other respects, the Special Court shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, follow the procedure and exercise all the powers of a Court in hearing a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (Central Act V of 1908) and any person making an objection shall be required to adduced evidence to show that at the date of attachment he had some interest in the property attached. (6) .....” and submits that as per Section 11 of The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, any person, including the Competent Authority, if aggrieved by an order of the Special Court, may appeal to the High Court within 30 days from the date of the order (in regard to an order of interim Attachment being made absolute or refusing to make absolute the order of ad-interim Attachment made by the Government). That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents submits that the Appellant filed O.S.No.380 of 2010 seeking the relief of Specific Performance based on a Sale Agreement and that the suit was dismissed on 31.07.2012 by the Sub Court, Poonamallee and against the said Judgment, the Appellant filed A.S.No.48 of 2012 on the file of the Learned District Judge, Thiruvallur, and as such, the Appellant is to work out his remedy only through the Civil Court. 25. 25. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents submits that the Third Respondent was the Managing Partner of the Second Respondent and the Company collected deposits from the Public and that the properties of the Firm was attached by the Government of Tamil Nadu in terms of G.O.Ms.No.263 Home (Courts.IIA) Department dated 24.02.1999 for non-payment of matured deposits and that the Competent Authority-cum-Commissioner of Land Administration, filed a Petition before the Special Court (under TNPID Act), Chennai, in O.A.No.12 of 1999 to make absolute all the Attachments. 26. It is represented on behalf of the Third Respondent that the Third Respondent filed I.A.No.23 of 2000 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 praying for passing of an order by the Special Court to permit him to sell three properties out of attached ones in G.O.Ms.No.263 Home (Courts.IIA) Department dated 24.02.1999 and that the trial Court permitted the defaulter/Third Respondent to bring in the intending purchasers, who were to apply and deposit the sale proceeds into Court and the Court would order for sale of the property after full sale proceeds deposited into the Court and the collected amount would be paid to the depositors. 27. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents informs this Court that the Appellant had applied to the trial Court/Special Court as intending purchaser to purchase 2400 sq.ft in S.No.920/1C of Korattur Village, Ambattur Taluk and the trial Court dismissed the Appellant's application in I.A.No.85 of 2000 in I.A.No.66 of 2000 in I.A.No.23 of 2000 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 dated 23.09.2000 for the reason that he had not deposited the requisite amount within the time limit and as such the Appellant has no right or title over the property in question. 28. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents contends that the lands in S.Nos.927, 920/1C and 925 of Korattur Village, owned by the Finance Firm were attached by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.263 Home (Courts.IIA) Department dated 24.02.1999 and possession of all the properties covered in the Attachment were taken by the Revenue Department from the date of Attachment and the Appellant (Defaulter) and the Third Respondent had no right to hand over possession of the suit property, which was under the possession of Government ever since from 24.02.1999 till 03.12.2012. As a matter of fact, the Third Respondent has no right to sell the attached properties under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, and as such the Sale Agreement claimed by the Appellant is null and void. 29. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents projects a legal plea that the Appellant filed O.S.No.380 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, and by means of Judgment dated 31.07.2012, the suit filed by the Appellant came to be dismissed with observations in paragraph-9 of the Judgment, which runs as under:- “9. In the circumstances, since there is no privity of contract between the third defendant and the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to show that the second defendant is an agent of third defendant and because of non-registration of Ex.A5, the same is not valid in law, no decree can be passed on the basis of Ex.A5. In the circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed.” 30. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents informs this Court that the Appellant filed A.S.No.48 of 2012, being dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.380 of 2012 dated 31.07.2012, before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, which was dismissed for default on 24.06.2014. 31. The Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents contends that the eviction of encroachment was ordered by the trial Court / Special Judge in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in I.A.No.129 of 2005 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and therefore, it is a civil matter, which attracts Civil Appeal or Civil Revision Petition and that the Appellant cannot approach the Criminal Appellate Court for a civil matter. 32. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents brings it to the notice of this Court that the Third Respondent had furnished a letter dated 28.04.2014 addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Criminal Side) raising objection in regard to numbering of civil matter on the Criminal Appellate Side of this Court and that the Third Respondent's Counsel was advised by the Registry to represent the fact before the Hon'ble Court as it was already numbered. 33. 33. Continuing further, it is represented on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents that the Third Respondent filed I.A.No.129 of 2005 and I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 to evict the encroachments, which took place during the possession of the Government in respect of the attached lands. Furthermore, the then District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur, Mohanasundaram had deposed before the trial Court/Special Court on 15.11.2008 that the encroachment took place, while the attached lands were in possession of Revenue Department and also the Revenue Department is ready to hand over vacant possession to the petitioner after removing encroachments, if the Special Court passed orders to that effect and as such the orders in I.A.No.129 of 2005 and I.A.No.3 of 2013 were passed by the trial Court/Special Judge to evict encroachments, as stated supra. 34. Also that, it is represented on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents that the Government preferred CRP (NPD).No.1828 of 2014 as against the orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in I.A.No.129 of 2005 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 requesting more time to evict the encroachers, which includes the lands covered under the present Appeal and in fact, this Court on 30.04.2014 ordered to evict all encroachments. Further, the Appellant's name finds a place in the list of encroachers and if really, the Appellant was aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in I.A.No.129 of 2005 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 on 23.07.2013, he should have preferred an Appeal at the earliest point of time and without resorting to such a course, the present Appeal filed by the Appellant as against the order dated 11.03.2014 in unnumbered I.A.SR.Nos.82 and 83 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999, per se not maintainable. 35. It is not in dispute that the Special Court/trial Court granted permission to the Third Respondent to sell the properties for value not less than Rs.3,00,000/-per ground and by virtue of the order passed by the trial Court, the Third Respondent entered into a Sale Agreement in respect of a total extent measuring 10,488 sq.ft. situated in S.Nos.925/5 (part), 925/6 and 915 at Korattur Village. It transpires that the sale amount was deposited on 23.01.2009 and the whole agreement amount was paid to the Third Respondent, who had handed over physical possession of the property to the Appellant. situated in S.Nos.925/5 (part), 925/6 and 915 at Korattur Village. It transpires that the sale amount was deposited on 23.01.2009 and the whole agreement amount was paid to the Third Respondent, who had handed over physical possession of the property to the Appellant. The Appellant/Petitioner had reportedly constructed compound wall and building by spending more than Rs.5,00,000/-. 36. According to the Appellant/Petitioner, he had entered into an agreement with the Third Respondent on 22.08.2000 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-in respect of S.No.920/1C and that he entered into a second agreement with the Third Respondent on 04.01.2001, for the value of Rs.2,00,000/- for S.Nos.927/1A and 927/1C and also entered into a third agreement dated 04.04.2001 in respect of S.Nos.927/1A, 927/1C and 927/1E. 37. The Appellant/Petitioner, pursuant to the aforesaid agreements is in possession of the properties, wherein, he had constructed the building and he is reportedly running the Industries. In the Public Notice issued by the Revenue Authorities, it was mentioned that some members of the Public had encroached in S.No.927/1A and other Survey Numbers. Admittedly, the Appellant/Petitioner is in possession of S.Nos.925/5 (part), 925/6 and 921/C. 38. It comes to be known that earlier the Third Respondent filed I.A.No.129 of 2005 praying for passing of an order by the trial Court to evict the encroachers in respect of S.Nos.927/1C, 920/1A and 920/B and the same was allowed. Even after I.A.No.129 of 2005 was allowed by the trial Court, the Revenue Authorities, viz., the Collector of Chennai and the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur, had not taken any steps to remove the encroachers. Later, the Tahsildar, Ambattur, produced the list of additional encroachers in Patta land. But the name of the Appellant/Petitioner had not found a place in the encroachers list. In view of the fact that after passing of G.O.Ms.No.263 Home (Courts.IIA) Department dated 24.02.1999, the properties mentioned therein are in the hands of the Revenue Authorities, the Revenue Authorities were directed to remove the encroachers. But the name of the Appellant/Petitioner had not found a place in the encroachers list. In view of the fact that after passing of G.O.Ms.No.263 Home (Courts.IIA) Department dated 24.02.1999, the properties mentioned therein are in the hands of the Revenue Authorities, the Revenue Authorities were directed to remove the encroachers. Indeed, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.3 of 2013 (filed by the Third Respondent) under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying for passing of an order by the trial Court in directing the Respondents to evict all the encroachers inclusive of all additional encroachments in the attached lands under G.O.Ms.No.263 Home (Courts.IIA) Department dated 24.02.1999 and the same was allowed on 27.03.2013, in and by which, the Respondents therein were directed to evict the encroachers from the petition mentioned properties within four months from today (27.03.2013) and it was also mentioned that after evicting the encroachers from the petition mentioned properties, vacant possession was to be handed over. 39. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that a perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court in unnumbered I.A.SR.Nos.82 and 83 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 dated 11.03.2014 indicates that when O.A.No.12 of 1999 was pending on the file of the trial Court, the Appellant/Petitioner filed I.A.No.15 of 2007 praying for passing of an order by the trial Court to release some of the properties in G.O.Ms.No.263 dated 24.02.1999, but the said Application was dismissed for default. But the Appellant/Petitioner had not taken steps to raise the Attachments. However, the Appellant/Petitioner in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.83 of 2014 had prayed for passing of an order by the trial Court to set aside the order of eviction passed in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 dated 27.03.2013 in regard to S.Nos.925/5 (part), 925/6 and 918 measuring an extent of 10,488 sq.ft. At this stage, this Court very pertinently points out that O.A.No.12 of 1999 filed by the Competent Authority/Special Commissioner cum Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai under Sections 4(3) and 4(4) of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, was dismissed as an infructuous one by the trial Court on 01.04.2013, in view of the order passed in I.A.No.44 of 2013 dated 19.01.2005 and I.A.No.79 of 2011 dated 03.12.2012. In fact, I.A.No.3 of 2013 (filed by the Third Respondent) was allowed by the trial Court on 27.03.2013 on merits. 40. At this juncture, one cannot ignore an important fact that the Fifth Respondent (Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur) and Third Respondent in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in I.A.No.129 of 2005 in O.A.No.12 of 1999, in the counter in paragraph-4 had averred that encroachments furnished in the list were not fully covered in the ''attached properties'' and that the encroachments have been made in Government Poramboke lands in S.No.1052/1 and 959 classified as Battai and Erikarai Poramboke lands. Hence, the encroachments cannot be removed without giving proper notice to the encroachers. Finally, in paragraph-5 of the said counter, the Fifth Respondent/Tahsildar had also stated that the part of the house buildings, such as bathroom, toilet, compound and other portions of dwelling units were constructed on the case lands by penetrating into these attached properties and hence, stated that they require proper measurement to identify and assess the extent of encroachments made in the case lands to execute the eviction operation and prayed for nine months time to complete the peg marking work. 41. As far as the present cases are concerned, even though the Appellant/Petitioner's name does not find a place in I.A.No.3 of 2013, as one of the Respondents, in the orders passed on 27.03.2013 in I.A.No.3 of 2013, the Appellant/Petitioner's name, in Sl.No.16 in S.Nos.920/1 and 925, it was mentioned as 'Durai Industries' and nature of encroachment was described as 'building' (as seen from the common typed set in Crl.A.Nos.224 and 225 of 2014 filed by the Appellant dated 10.06.2014). In any event, the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in I.A.No.129 of 2005 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 (filed by the Third Respondent as Petitioner before the trial Court) has become final and conclusive, in the considered opinion of this Court. Also that, this Court has ordered in CRP (NPD).No.1824 of 2014 on 30.04.2014 (filed against I.A.No.3 of 2013 in I.A.No.129 of 2005 in O.A.No.12 of 1999) to evict all the encroachments. Also that, this Court has ordered in CRP (NPD).No.1824 of 2014 on 30.04.2014 (filed against I.A.No.3 of 2013 in I.A.No.129 of 2005 in O.A.No.12 of 1999) to evict all the encroachments. As such, it is too late in the day for the Appellant to contend that the Special Court / trial Court is not vested with any powers to direct the Revenue Authorities to remove the encroachments, if at all made over the attached properties and as such, the said plea projected on the side of the Appellant is not accepted by this Court for the simple reason that the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, overrides other laws. Moreover, the Special Court / trial Court is in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge, as per Section 6 of the Act. In fact, Section 7 of the Act prescribed the procedures to be followed by the Special Court to make the order of ad-interim Attachment of Government absolute or refuse to make absolute the order of ad-interim Attachment of the Government. In fact, Section 7(6) of the Act, contemplates a time limit of 180 days to the Special Courts to pass an order under this Section to make an order of ad-interim Attachment absolute or refuse to make an order of ad-interim Attachment absolute. If the ad-interim order of the Attachment made by the Government is made absolute by the Special Court, then under Section 7(7) of the Act, the Special Court, on an application made by the Competent Authority, direct the Competent Authority to sell the attached properties by Public Auction and realise the sale proceeds. No wonder, the Special Court can also issue order or direction to the Competent Authority for the equitable distribution among the Depositors, of the money attached or realised out of the sale of the attached properties. 42. At this stage, a cursory perusal of the ingredients of Section 7(5) of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, shows that the Special Court has the power to investigate in regard to an Attachment, sale realisation and distribution and in regard to the examination of the parties and in all other respects, it shall, subject to the provision of this Act, follow the procedure and exercise all the powers of a Court in hearing a suit under Civil Procedure Code, etc. Section 9 of the Act speaks of 'Security in lieu of Attachment'. Section 10 of the Act deals with 'Administration of the property attached'. Section 11 of the Act deals with 'Filing of an Appeal by any one including the Competent Authority against the order of the Special Court in making the order of ad-interim Attachment absolute or refusing to absolute the order of ad-interim Attachment made by the Government'. Section 12 of the Act speaks of 'Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor for each Special Court for the purpose of conducting the cases in that Court'. Section 13 of the Act speaks of 'Procedures and Powers of the Special Court regarding offences'. In the instant case on hand, the Appellant has filed the instant Criminal Appeals before this Court in regard to the rejection order dated 11.03.2014 passed by the trial Court in unnumbered I.A.SR.Nos.82 and 83 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 (filed by the Appellant/Petitioner/Third Party under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code). 43. It is to be pointed out that Section 5(A) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, enjoins the Competent Authority to compound the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act before initiation of Prosecution, if the Competent Authority is satisfied that the whole sum due to the Depositors have been paid with or without interest by the Accused person(s), the offence under Section 5 of the Act committed by the said Accused may be compounded by him. However, when charge sheet is filed before the Special Court, the Competent Authority can compound the offence only with the permission of that Court. If the offence is compounded by the Competent Authority, then the proceedings under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act come to an end and the Accused person shall be discharged from the charges levelled against him. 44. Further as per Section 6(4) of the Act, it is clear that when trying any case, the Special Court may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 5, with which the Accused may under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act, 2 of 1974) be charged at the same trial. 44. Further as per Section 6(4) of the Act, it is clear that when trying any case, the Special Court may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 5, with which the Accused may under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act, 2 of 1974) be charged at the same trial. Also that as per Section 13(2) of the Act, the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (Central Act, 2 of 1974) shall, so far as may be, applied to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the said provisions, a Special Court shall be deemed to be a Magistrate. 45. At this stage, this Court worth recollects and recall the Hon'ble Full Bench decision in ''Vijay C.Puljal .v. State of Maharashtra and others' reported in 2005(4) CTC 705 at Special Page 712” wherein in paragraph-5, it is inter alia observed as follows:- 5. ... Under sub-Section (5) of Section 7, the Designated Court has to follow the summary procedure under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and upon an investigation under sub-section (5), the Court is empowered by sub-section (6) to either make the order of attachment absolute or to vary or cancel the order of attachment. The proviso to subsection (6) lays down that the Designated Court shall not release from attachment any interest which the Financial Establishment or a person specified in sub-section (1) has in the property unless it is also satisfied that there will remain under attachment an amount or property of value not less than the value that is required for repayment to the depositors of the Establishment. Section 8 empowers the Designated Court to attach properties of transferees where the Court is satisfied that the transfer was not in good faith and for consideration. The Act makes other consequential provisions and in Section 14 provides that it shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.'' 46. Also, this Court aptly points out the Full Bench decision of this Court in ''S.Bagavathy .v. State of Tamil Nadu'' reported in 2007 (2) MLJ 526 at Special Page 603” wherein at paragraph150, it is observed as follows:- ''150. Also, this Court aptly points out the Full Bench decision of this Court in ''S.Bagavathy .v. State of Tamil Nadu'' reported in 2007 (2) MLJ 526 at Special Page 603” wherein at paragraph150, it is observed as follows:- ''150. When the Competent Authority initiated action under Sections 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 or 10 of the Act against the financial establishments or any other person to achieve the awesome objects of the Tamil Nadu Act, the same were challenged either by way of Writ Petitions, Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, Crl.O.Ps., Crl.R.C., on the ground that the impugned Tamil Nadu Act is unconstitutional, and some of them are still pending before this Court. Since we have declared that the Tamil Nadu Act does not suffer any legislative competency; nor its provisions are arbitrary and unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice; nor offends Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, all these writ petitions and civil miscellaneous appeals stand dismissed and consequently, the Special Court or the Competent Authority, as the case may be, shall proceed to enforce the law with right orientation, correct grasp and socio-economic activism, as indicated above.” 47. In this connection, it is not out of place for this Court to make a significant mention that in the Hon'ble Division Bench decision of this Court in 'A.Samivel .v. Competent Authority and Additional Commissioner (Cinema and Irrigation), Land Administration Department, Chennai reported in 2004 (4) MLJ 565 at Special Page 566, it is held as follows:- “ While ordering interim release of the vehicle which has been attached pending disposal of the appeal no condition could be imposed requiring the party to deposit a sum which is more than the value of the articles attached''. 48. In the aforesaid decision, it is to be noted that CMA.No.2837 of 2004 came to be filed as against the impugned order dated 23.09.2004 passed in O.A.No.44 of 2004 by the Court of Learned Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai, pertaining to the conditions imposed requiring the Appellant/Petitioner therein to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Ultimately, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed in part. 49. It cannot be gainsaid that under Sections 7(2)(3)(4)(5)(6), the Special Court under T.N.P.I.D (in F.E.S) Act, 1997 Chennai, acts as a Civil Court and exercises all the powers of the Court in hearing a suit, the Civil Procedure Code is to be followed. Ultimately, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed in part. 49. It cannot be gainsaid that under Sections 7(2)(3)(4)(5)(6), the Special Court under T.N.P.I.D (in F.E.S) Act, 1997 Chennai, acts as a Civil Court and exercises all the powers of the Court in hearing a suit, the Civil Procedure Code is to be followed. Indeed, under Section 7 of the Court, the Special Court/Designated Court is clothed with powers not only regarding Attachment, but for sale and realisation and distribution and procedure is prescribed to be followed for making the Attachment absolute. 50. It is to be pointed out that Section 18 (3) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and Article 372 (1) of the Constitution of India have kept the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance alive as per decision STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SANTO KUMAR MITRA {AIR 1952 PATNA – 148}. Further, the Ordinance does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, the closure perusal of Section 3(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 dealing with the application for Attachment of property speaks of the applicability of provisions of Order 27 of the First Schedule of Civil Procedure Code for an order of Attachment under the Ordinance as they applied to suits by the Government. Section 4 of the said Ordinance speaks of passing of an order of ad-interim Attachment by the District Judge on receipt of an application. Section 5(2) of the Ordinance in respect of investigation of objections to Attachment speaks of following the procedure and exercising all the powers of a Court in hearing a suit under Civil Procedure Code in regard to examination of parties in all other respects. Section 12 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, enjoins Criminal Courts to evaluate property procured by scheduled offences. Section 13 of the Ordinance deals with the disposal of the attached property upon termination of Criminal Proceedings. 51. It is to be pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments), Act, 1997, provides easy and quick remedies for recovery of deposits from such of the Financial Establishments within the definition of Section 2 (3) of the Act. No wonder, the aim of the Act is to protect the interest of depositors money without providing the depositors to take civil action which is admittedly a time consuming and costly affair, in the considered opinion of this Court. No wonder, the aim of the Act is to protect the interest of depositors money without providing the depositors to take civil action which is admittedly a time consuming and costly affair, in the considered opinion of this Court. 52. It is to be pointed out that Or.41 of Civil Procedure Code speaks of filing of Appeals from original Decrees. As a matter of fact, Or.43 Rule 1 (1) (a) to (w) provides for filing of an appeal (under Section 104 of C.P.C) in respect of orders passed (beginning from Rule 10 or Or.7 of C.P.C., upto and Order under Rule 4 of Section 47 of C.P.C., granting an application for review. 53. Insofar as Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 is concerned, as per Section 6 of the Act, the trial of the cases under the Act arising from the entire State of Tamil Nadu is to be conducted in the cadre of a District and Sessions Judge from the date on which the said Judge takes charge of the said Court (Vide G.O.Ms.No.1687, Home (Court-II) Department, dated 20.11.1997). It cannot be forgotten that the Special Court while acting as a Civil Court under Sections 7(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) and exercising all the powers of the Court in hearing a suit is to follow the Civil Procedure Code, in the considered opinion of this Court, is only procedural in nature and in fact when the Special Court is constituted by the State Government in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge by the Government of Tamil Nadu for trial of cases under the Act (arising from whole State of Tamil Nadu), then the filing of an Appeal under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 is only a statutory/substantive right conferred on the aggrieved/affected party to challenge the order of Special Court by filing Appeal to the High Court, within 30 days from the date of the order and this right, in the considered opinion of this Court, will prevail over aspect of following the procedure, exercising all the powers of a Court in hearing a suit under the Civil Procedure Code, as contemplated under Section 7(5) of the Act. At this stage, this Court, significantly points out that it is open to a litigant to challenge the validity of an interlocutory order unless such an order is not an appealable one. Indeed, an Order under Section 151 of C.P.C., is not an appealable one. Only specified orders are appealable, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KESHARDEO CHAMRIA Vs. RADHA KISSEN CHAMRIA AND OTHERS (AIR 1953 SC – 23). Moreover, in appeal, the Appellate Court can review the entire evidence subject to the statutory limitations. In Revision, the Revisional Court cannot do so, unless permitted by statute. 54. It is to be remembered that the Right of Revision is not inherent and it is conferred by Legislature and its extent and scope depends on how it is conferred by the statute. Also that the right of 'Appeal' is substantive right, however, there is no substantive right, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHIV SHAKTI COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY, NAGPUR Vs. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS {(2003) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES – 659, 668}. 55. Inasmuch as in the two Criminal Appeals before this Court, the two impugned orders dated 11/3/2014 in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.82 of 2014 and I.A.No.83 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 passed by the Special Court/Designated Court under T.N.P.I.D Act (F.E.S), 1997 do not come either under Or.41 or Order 43 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court is of the considered opinion that filing of Civil Appeals or Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are not per se maintainable in the eye of Law. 56. Apart from the above, it is to be noted that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of the jurisdiction, as opined by this Court. Indeed, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly by a Court of Law. Also that, where there is no provision for Appeal, Revision lies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to reappreciate material whether the trial Court/designated Court right or the Appellate Court is right on merits. Also that, where there is no provision for Appeal, Revision lies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to reappreciate material whether the trial Court/designated Court right or the Appellate Court is right on merits. In the instant cases of hand, the appellant has not challenged the impugned orders dated 11/3/2014 in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.82 of 2014 and I.A.SR.No.83 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2014 in O.A.No.12 of 1989 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 57. Coming to the present cases on hand, this Court bearing in mind an important fact that the Special Court/Designated Court/trial Court is deemed to be a 'MAGISTRATE' and also that when a Special Public Prosecutor for that Court is appointed by the State Government for the purpose of conducting cases in that Court and also when the said Court is bestowed with power of granting permission to compound an offence as per Section 5(A) of the Act, then this Court comes to an irresistible and inescapable conclusion that the present Criminal Appeals filed by the appellant are prima facie/ex facie maintainable in law. In any event, this Court is of the view that the nomenclature to be given either a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal or Appeal does not matter. In reality, this Court comes to the conclusion that the present Criminal Appeals filed by the Appellant, at the threshold, against the orders in I.A.SR.Nos.82 and 83 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 dated 11.03.2014 are maintainable. In reality, this Court comes to the conclusion that the present Criminal Appeals filed by the Appellant, at the threshold, against the orders in I.A.SR.Nos.82 and 83 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 dated 11.03.2014 are maintainable. Since the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 is a self-contained and inbuilt Act and when Section 14 of the said Act speaks of overriding effect in respect of other Laws and also when Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Rules, 1997 speaks of furnishing of report to the Special Court in regard to the absconding persons or persons who are concealing themselves, then this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the Special Court are in the nature of a Criminal Court and therefore, any Appeal/Appeals preferred under Section 11 of the said Act can only be captioned as Criminal Appeals and if such Appeals are filed before this Court against the orders passed by the Special Court, then it cannot be thrown out at the threshold. 58. In fact, the Competent Authority/ Collector of Chennai District filed CRP.NPD.No.1828 of 2014 before this Court only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Special Judge under TNPID Act, 1997, Chennai, in I.A.No.1 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in I.A.No.129 of 2005 in O.A.No.12 of 1999. Ordinarily under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can exercise supervisory control over the Subordinate Courts when the orders are challenged before it. In the instant cases on hand, though the Appellant/Petitioner filed I.A.SR.Nos.82 and 83 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the said Applications were rejected at the unnumbered stage by the Special Court/trial Court. In the instant cases on hand, though the Appellant/Petitioner filed I.A.SR.Nos.82 and 83 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the said Applications were rejected at the unnumbered stage by the Special Court/trial Court. Even though the Appellant/Petitioner had quoted Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in both the unnumbered Applications before the Special Court, yet this Court is of the considered view against the rejection orders passed by the Special Court/trial Court in those Applications, that only Criminal Appeals would lie before this Court, since the Special Court as per Section 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 shall be deemed to be a Magistrate, who shall follow the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code for trial of warrant cases by the Magistrate (apart from the fact that a Special Public Prosecutor is to conduct cases). 59. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the fact that the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, enables the Special Court / trial Court to follow the procedure contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to examination of parties and in all other respects and exercise all the powers of a Court in hearing a suit under Civil Procedure Code and also this Court bearing in mind, another important fact that Section 13 of the Act speaks of 'applicability of provision of Criminal Procedure Code before the Special Court and also that the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Magistrate for the purpose of said provisions, and added further in view of Section 14 of the Act, which says the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, is to override other Laws, this Court is of the considered view that the present Appeals filed by the Appellant, even though invoking the ingredients of Section 11 of the Act, are maintainable, on the Criminal Appellate Side, yet this Court not only based on an over all assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case (which float on the surface) but also on merits, hold that the Appellant has not made out a case for allowing the same. Consequently, the Appeals fail. 60. Consequently, the Appeals fail. 60. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.