- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants.
(2.) BY means of this revision applicants challenge the validity of the order dated 5-9-2000 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad whereby application No. 78 Ga for appointment of a Commission to make inspection of the goods in dispute was rejected by the said Court. It appears that the respondent supplied certain goods to the applicants, the price whereof was not paid by them. The respondent, therefore, had to file Original Suit No. 321 of 1996 for recovery of the price of the said goods amounting Rs. 4,28,000. During the pendency of the said suit, the applicants filed an application for appointment of a Commission to inspect the goods and to submit the report. According to the applicants sub-standard goods were supplied by the respondent. The application filed by the applicants was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondent. It was pleaded that the goods were supplied in the year 1996 but since then they have never applied for inspection of the goods nor raised any grievance or objection regarding the quality of the goods, therefore, at this juncture there was no justification to appoint any Commission to inspect the goods in question. The Court below after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties upheld the objection raised by the respondent and held that after lapse of five years no useful purpose shall be served by appointing a Commission to make inspection of the goods. The appointment of a Commission is discretionary for the Court. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons recorded by the Court below it cannot be said that the Court below has acted illegally or failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. No case for interference under Section 115 CPC is made out.
(3.) THE revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;