ORDER : P.N. PRAKASH, J. 1. On the Appeals filed by the State Bank of India, Arasaradi Branch, this Court had passed certain orders on 12.04.2017 in Crl.A. (MD) Nos. 203 and 204 of 2014, directing the Special Court for CBI Cases, to conduct enquiry upon the properties confiscated in C.C. No. 1 of 2001 after giving due opportunities to adduce evidence on either side. Aggrieved by the said order, one K. Thakshinamurthy, the petitioner herein, filed Crl.M.P.(MD)SR. No. 21925 of 2017 in Crl.A. (MD) Nos. 203 and 204 of 2014 for recalling the order dated 12.04.2017. The Registry entertained doubts about the very maintainability of the petition and, therefore, the matter was posted for deciding the issue of maintainability before the Court. The matter was heard by brother V. Bharathidasan, J., who, by his order dated 30.08.2017, has held that the petition was not maintainable, in view of the bar under section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Pursuant to the order dated 12.04.2017, the Second Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, has initiated enquiry proceedings and has issued notice dated 13.07.2017, challenging which, K.Thakshinamurthy has filed the present Criminal Revision Case. Once again, the Registry doubted about the maintainability of the revision and hence, the matter is posted for deciding the issue of maintainability. 2. Heard Mr. B.Prahalad Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Jayakumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing for the first respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 12.04.2017 was passed behind the back of the petitioner, at the time when the petitioner was in jail and, therefore, the present Criminal Revision Case is maintainable. 4. In the opinion of this Court, the present Revision is not maintainable on the short ground that the Second Additional District Court for CBI Cases has not passed any final order and has issued only a show cause notice, which is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction, in view of the bar under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That apart, the learned Second Additional District Judge for CBI Cases is only acting on the directions issued by this Court, by order dated 12.04.2017 and is proceeding to conduct an enquiry, which cannot be a subject matter of judicial review at this stage in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. That apart, the learned Second Additional District Judge for CBI Cases is only acting on the directions issued by this Court, by order dated 12.04.2017 and is proceeding to conduct an enquiry, which cannot be a subject matter of judicial review at this stage in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when this Court had passed the earlier order dated 09.10.2014 on the same subject matter, the subsequent order dated 12.04.2017 is not maintainable. This Court is of the view that there cannot be a challenge to the order dated 12.04.2017 in this revision, especially in the light of the dismissal of the recall petition filed by the petitioner herein as stated above. 6. In view of the above, the objection raised by the Registry is upheld and this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P.(MD)SR. No. 30533 of 2017 is also dismissed.