K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment of the revisional court dated 31-8-1982 and the order, dated 26-9-1981 whereby the petitioner's application for examining an expert in support of the petitioner's claim has been rejected.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that if the impugned orders are not quashed, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and their claim shall be negatived for want of proper evidence in tho case.
(3.) The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it is against the order which is in the nature of interlocutory order. He has also stressed that the revision before the revisional court was also not maintainable. He has stressed before me that the conduct of the petitioner in proceeding before the Consolidation Authorities is not such that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised at the instance of the petitioners.;