jurisdiction where the Subordinate Court appears (i) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (ii) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (iii) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. But, in this revision, none of these grounds were raised. Further, as per proviso to Section 115 C.P.C., the High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. In this case, the present stage is an attachment was ordered under Order XXI Rule 54 of C.P.C. which is a step towards sale of the property after filing sale papers, encumbrance certificate etc., this order of attachment will not terminate the proceedings finally. Therefore, such order cannot be treated as a final order in view of the law declared by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1968 SC 733), wherein the Apex Court laid down the following four guidelines to decide whether the order under challenge is an ‘interlocutory order’ or ‘final order’:
