R.B. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders, dated 5.9.1990, 8.11.1990 and 8.11.1990, filed as Annexures 3, 4 and 8 respectively to the writ petition. By order, dated 5.8.1990, the Prescribed Authority has permitted the replication, filed by the petitioner, to be taken on record. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that under the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, there is no provision for permitting replication being taken on record. Even if that be so, merely on such technicality, this Court is not to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By order, dated 8.11.1990, the petitioner's application for cross -examining the applicant's witnesses, has been rejected at the stage, meaning thereby that after filing of the petitioner's evidence, the question that whether the applicant's witnesses should be examined or not should be considered if the petitioner so desires. This order also does not call for any interference. The last order is also dated 8.11.1990 whereby the petitioner moved an application for summoning the documents from the applicants custody. This application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has still to file affidavits in support of his contention and the application is pre -mature. This order also does not decide the right of the petitioner finally.
(2.) THE writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly rejected in limine.;