Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This is an application for review of the order dated 31.7.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40212 of 2006 Rajesh Kumar Sharma and another v. Bhagwan Das by this Court. The Counsel for the applicants submits that the amendment made by State of U.P. in section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the proviso II of sub -rule 3 clearly speaks that if the order is allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable loss or injury to the party against whom it is made. In the circumstances, the revision is maintainable and the impugned order dated 1.3.2006 is causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner as his 'receipt' sought to be filed in support of his case is not being permitted to take on record as evidence. He further submits that if the document is not taken on record it will amount to the denial of opportunity to the applicant to lead evidence and that the order dated 1.3.2006 rejecting the applicant's application for taking document on record has also been challenged in the writ petition, hence the direction for taking the document on record could be passed by this Court by ignoring the Revisional Court's order.
(2.) IN support of the above contentions the Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the following rulings: 1. Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others : 1994 (Suppl.) RD 172 (SC); 2. Prem Bakshi and others v. Dharam Dev and others : 2002 (93) RD 104 (SC); Shiv Shakti Co -operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and others : 2003 (51) ALR 509 : 2003 (6) AIC 849 (SC);
(3.) SHIPPING Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers and others : (2004) 11 SCC 168;;