The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, and the court's authority to revise orders aimed at securing the ends of justice.

1. The fight between two factions of the Jacobite Christians has given rise to this proceedings. To start with the dispute related to their rights over Mar Ougen Church, Maravanthuruth and cemetry attached to it. Consequent on that dispute, proceedings u/S. 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palai in M.C. No.6/78. Preliminary order u/S. 145 (1) was issued on 23-3-1978. On the same day the learned Magistrate initiated proceedings u/S. 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By that order the entire Church and all its properties including the cemetry were placed under the custody of the Village Officer, Kulasekhararnangalam as receiver. The rival parties thereupon approached the civil court by filing suits. Those suits are still pending. When the Sub Divisional Magistrate proceeded with the trial of M.C. 6/78, "A" party to the proceedings approached this court by filing Crl. M.C. 509/81. By order dated 26-9-1981 this court directed the Magistrate not to proceed with

M.C. 6/78 till the question in dispute is decided by a competent civil court. Since the civil court did not adjudicate on the rights of the parties over the disputed property and the Church till date, M.C. 6/78 is still pending.

2. By order dated 28-5-1981, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered that B party 2 may conduct the burial ceremony in the cemetry of the Church under dispute till further orders or till the case is finally disposed of whichever is earlier. While the matters stood like that, B party 2 moved a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for permission to allow the Catholicos of the East and not less than 3 Bishops of their group to enter the cemetery and to take part in the funeral ceremony that has to take place on the death of Rev. Fr. Joseph Cor Episcopa B party 1. They also prayed for sanction to erect a tomb for him. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate by order dated 11-4-1988 declined the sanction for the presence of Bishops or higher religious dignitaries in the cemetery during the funeral ceremony. The request for erection of the tomb was allowed subject to the following conditions:

(1) The spot in the cemetery for erection of tomb shall be determined with the concurrence of both the parties.

(2) A joint declaration from the petitioner and his brother Mr. Thomas stating that the tomb is being erected for their father's burial only and not as a family tomb:

(3) Construction of the tomb should be supervised by B party and his elder brother and no one else.

(4) Necessary permission from the Village Officer, Kulasekharamangalam should have to be obtained as is done in normal circumstances. Whole affairs also should be supervised by the Village Officer ensuring that there is no breach of peace.

(5) A minute to minute account of the ceremony should be sent to this court.

(6) No one should enter into the Church building during that period.

Aggrieved by this order declining sanction for the entry of higher religious dignitaries into the cemetery, B party No. 2 preferred criminal revision petition 23 of 1988 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The learned Sessions Judge directed the receiver to permit H. E. Basalios Mar Poulose and bis Bishops to conduct the funeral ceremonies and to take necessary steps to see that law and order is maintained during the ceremony. 'A' party No.land another has come up challenging the said direction given by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. Sri. T. Devassia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised 3 points for consideration. They are:

(1) The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was an interlocutory one and hence was not revisable by the Sessions Court in view of the prohibition contained in S.397 (2) of the Code;

(2) The learned Sessions Judge was clearly in error in varying the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate because it had no infirmity contemplated by S.397(1) of the Code.

(3) In view of the direction g