Shashi Kant Gupta, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This revision under section 115, C.P.C., is directed against the judgments and orders dated 17.8.2007 and 30.4.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Allahabad in Case No. 450 of 2001 whereby the application (Paper No. 66Ga) filed by the plaintiff under Order XI, Rule 1 and 4, C.P.C. was allowed and the review application of the defendant -revisionist was rejected.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present revision are that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 19.2.1992 was filed by the plaintiff respondent against the defendant revisionist in respect of the land in dispute claiming himself to be the owner of the disputed land. The defendant revisionist filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XI, Rule 1, C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff -respondent for leave to deliver interrogatories with a prayer to call upon the defendant revisionist to answer the interrogatories. The said application was allowed by the Court below by its order dated 17.8.2007. Against the said order, the defendant filed a review application which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 30.4.2008. Hence, the present revision. At the very outset, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff -respondent with regard to maintainability of the present revision under section 115, C.P.C. before this Court stating that the present revision has been filed against an interlocutory order whereby the Court below had merely allowed the application of the plaintiff filed under Order XI, Rule 1 and 4, C.P.C. for leave to deliver interrogatories. He further submits that the judgment and order allowing the application under Order XI, Rule 1, C.P.C. does not decide any right and liabilities of the parties and as such does not come within the purview of a "case decided" as contemplated under section 115, C.P.C.
(3.) TO this, learned Counsel for the defendant revisionists submitted that the present revision is fully maintainable and Trial Court has acted in the exercise its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the defendants.;