Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Challenge in this revision is to the judgment and order dated 21.4.2005 passed by Sri D.K. Tyagi, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Ghazipur, in Criminal Revision No. 458 of 2004 (Ranvindra Nath Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and another), whereby allowing the revision, the order dated 1.11.2004 passed by the S.D.M. Sadar, Ghazipur, under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. has been set aside.

2. The relevant facts as emerging from the record are that Narendra Nath Vishwakarma had moved an application in the Court of S.D.M. Sadar, Ghazipur to initiate the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of the house situated in Mohallah Saklenabad, P.S. Kotwali, District Ghazipur. On that application, a report was submitted by S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali, Ghazipur on 26.7.2004, in which it was stated that Sri Krishna Murari Vishwakarma and Sri Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma r/o village Pasidih @ Bikapur, Paragana and District Ghazipur, presently residing at Maru chak pasi Line District Bhagalpur (Bihar), were the owners of the house situated in Mohallah Saklenabad, P.S. Kotwali. District Ghazipur. They had executed a Mukhtarnama on 14.6.1995 regarding that house in favour of Nagendra Nath Vishwakarma, but in contravention of that Mukhtarnama, Ravindra Nath Vishwakarma has illegally occupied the house, due to which there is tension between the parties. Being satisfied with the report of S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali, Ghazipur, the S.D.M. Sadar, Ghazipur, passed preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. on 1.11.2004 in Case No. 26 of 2004 and issued notice to the parties to appear in his Court and file documents in respect of ownership and possession over the disputed house by 19.11.2004. On the same date viz. 1.11.2004, an order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. was also passed by the learned S.D.M., whereby the disputed house was attached and S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali was directed to give the house in the supurdagi of some neutral person. Feeling aggrieved by the order of attachment of the disputed house, Ravindra Nath Vishwakarma (opposite party No. 2 herein) preferred Criminal Revision No. 458 of 2004, which has been allowed vide impugned judgment dated 21.4.2005, hence this revision.

3. I have heard Sri Ankit Gaur, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State of U.P. (opposite party No. 1) and Sri A.K. Singh, Advocate, holding the brief of Sri R.K. Yadav, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 Ravindra Nath Vishwakarma. Arguments on the point of maintainability of the revision against preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. and order of attachment under Section 146 (1), Cr.P.C. were only heard and merit of the case was not considered.

4. Placing reliance on the case of Maan Babu Dubey v. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (55) ACC 489 it was straneously contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that revision against the order dated 1.11.2004 passed by the S.D.M. Sadar, Ghazipur, under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C, thereby, making attachment of the disputed house during pendency of the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was not legally maintainable, being barred by the provisions of Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C., and the learned lower Revisional Court has committed jurisdictional error by entertaining and allowing the revision and hence the impugned judgment being illegally is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The submission made by learned Counsel for the revisionist was that rights of the parties have yet not been decided by the S.D.M. Sadar, Ghazipur, while passing the order dated 1.11.2004, under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. and hence the order being interlocutory in nature is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction in view of the bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr.P.C.

5. On the contrary, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that rights of the parties are seriously affected by making attachment under Section 146 (1), Cr.