Revisional jurisdiction limited to issues raised: unchallenged complaint-maintainability order could not be reopened indirectly.

A revisional court is required to decide only the issues actually placed before it, and an unchallenged order on a separate objection attains finality. Here, the revision concerned only closure of the accused's right to cross-examine the complainant, and the court granted one effective opportunity subject to costs. The complaint-maintainability objection under Section 219 CrPC had already been rejected by an order that was never separately challenged, so the revisional court was not obliged to rule on it. The challenge to the revisional order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should set aside the revisional order on the ground that it did not decide the maintainability of the complaint under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even though the revisional challenge was confined to closure of the accused's right to cross-examine the complainant.

Analysis: The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arose from a revisional order that only set aside the trial court's closure of cross-examination and granted one effective opportunity subject to costs. The impugned revisional order dealt only with the procedural issue of cross-examination and did not adjudicate the maintainability of the complaint. The order dismissing the accused's application under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had not been separately challenged and had thus attained finality. Since the maintainability question was not the subject matter of the revision, the revisional court was under no obligation to return findings on that question.

Conclusion: The revisional order could not be set aside on the ground that it omitted to decide complaint maintainability, and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional order failed because the only issue before that court concerned cross-examination, while the maintainability objection under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had already been rejected by an unchallenged order.

Ratio Decidendi: A court in revision is required to decide only the issues actually placed before it, and an unchallenged order on a separate objection attains finality and cannot be reopened indirectly in a different proceeding.

---