Inder Dev Dua, J. - (1.) This revision under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the following order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi dated 9-1-1968: "Present counsel for the parties. Shri B. N. Sharma, Accountant of the Punjab National Bank has appeared. The plaintiff did not bring the money yesterday and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50.00 as searching fees etc. as claimed by the witnesses. Today the witnesses have been examined and at the close of the evidence of the witness the plaintiff was directed to pay Rs. 50.00 to the witness but he has declined to do so. He states that he has not brought the money today. He is ordered to deposit the same tomorrow positively and failing the same, the suit would stand dismissed. In case the plaintiff deposits the amount of Rs. 50.00 then the case will be taken on 31-1-68 for the statement of the plaintiff and for defence evidence on 24-2-1968."
(2.) The relief claimed is that the impugned order be set aside and the learned Subordinate Judge be directed to "examine the witnesses summoned, served and ordered to be produced before recording the statement of the petitioner and closing has evidence and also order the refund of Rs. 50.00 deposited by the petitioner as per lower Court's order dated 9-1-1968 under revision." On behalf of the respondents, an objection has been raised, which has been described to be a preliminary objection, to the effect that earlier, the petitioner had presented to this Court a revision (C.R. 132 of 1968) which was dismissed in limine by S. K. Kapur, J. on 7-3-1968. In that revision, so argues Shri Nayar, same relief was claimed by the petitioner as he seeks in the present revision. It is argued that on this ground the present revision should be held to be incompetent and be dismissed.
(3.) I have referred to the earlier revision (C.R. 132 of 1968) and I find that it was directed against an order of the Court below dated 3-2-1968 dismissing the petitioner's application dated 22-9-67 and 31-1-1968. It is thus obvious that on the basis of this preliminary objection, the present revision cannot be held to be incompetent. Incidentally, in the earlier revision filed by the petitioner in person, S. K. Kapur J. requested Shri Brij Bans Kishore, an Advocate practising at the bar of this Court, to help the petitioner because the petitioner was considered not to be conversant with the law and was also not in a position to afford a counsel. Shri Brij Bans Kishore took the trouble of going through the relevant record and assisted S. K. Kapur, J. in this matter. However, the revision was held not to be sustainable on the merits and was dismissed on 7-3-1968.;