ORDER : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as the 'revisional court'), whereby the criminal revision petition No. 345/2016 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner has filed the above revision petition before the revisional court against the order dated 15.10.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court'), whereby it has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 83 Cr. P.C. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has initiated proceedings against one Mahesh Thadani under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial court. In the said proceedings, despite service of summons Mahesh Thadani failed to appear before the court therefore he was declared as absconder by the trial court on 20.02.2013 and further direction to initiate proceedings against him under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. has been issued. Later on, the petitioner submitted a list of properties of Mahesh Thadani before the trial court, wherein one residential House No. 14/353 situated at Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur was mentioned. 4. The trial court vide order dated 29.06.2015 has ordered for attaching the said house. Pursuant to the direction of the trial court proceedings for attaching the disputed house were initiated, however, respondent No.2 has thereafter moved an application before the trial court under Section 83 Cr. P.C. for canceling the said attachment order while claiming that he has already purchased the disputed house from Mahesh Thadani on 27.11.2014 through a registered sale deed. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the trial court ordered for attaching the disputed house on 29.06.2015, however, prior to that he has purchased the said house and, therefore, the order of attachment be cancelled. 5. The application filed by the respondent No.2 was contested by the petitioner, however, the trial court vide order dated 15.10.2016 cancelled the order of attachment of the disputed house while holding that prior to the issuance of the order of attaching the disputed house i.e. on 29.06.2015, the respondent No.2 already purchased the said house through registered sale deed i.e. on 27.11.2014 and, therefore, the said house cannot be attached. The trial court has observed that prior to 29.06.2015, there was no prohibition in selling and purchasing of the disputed house and, therefore, the order cannot be sustained. Being aggrieved with the order dated 15.10.2016 passed by the trial court the petitioner has filed a criminal revision before the revisional court, however, the revisional court has rejected the said revision petition vide impugned order dated 25.11.2014 and confirmed the order passed by the trial court. Hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner before the courts below and submitted that the trial court as well as revisional court had erred in passing the impugned orders. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 8. It is not in dispute that for the first time the trial court ordered for attaching the disputed house on 29.06.2015 and prior to that, there was no prohibition in selling and purchasing the said house. It is also admitted that the respondent No.3 purchased the said house on 27.11.2014 through a registered sale deed. 9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. However, the petitioner is free to provide list of any other property pertaining to Mahesh Thadani before the trial court and if any such information is provided by the petitioner, it is expected that the trial court would consider the same and pass an appropriate order on such application in accordance with law. With these observations, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.