Vivek Chaudhary, J. - (1.) Case is called out in the revised list.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist is present. None is present for the respondent.
(3.) By the present revision, revisionist has challenged the order dated 02-08-2007 by which her application under Order 15 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The said application was filed by the revisionist claiming that during pendency of the suit, regular rent was not being deposited by the firm which was a tenant. The said application is rejected by the court below on the ground that it is a question of fact as to how much rent was required to be paid and as to whether the partnership stands dissolved or not.;