The court has the power to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set right an error in the interests of justice, even if the terms of Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code do not warrant interference.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the plaintiff against the order of the Second additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 13th August 1981 in i. A. No. 896 of 1981 in O. S. No. 123 of 1972, the Order impugned reads as under:"counter memo is filed. The petition will be considered after hearing the arguments in the main suit if it is found necessary, call on 18-8-1981. "

( 2 ) IT is not clear from the order impugned as to what is the petition and what is the counter. It is only stated that the petition would be considered after hearing the arguments in the main suit if it was found necessary. Mr. Syed Shah Mobd Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the plaintiff filed the petitition, I. A. 896/81 for summoning the file bearing Khata No. 89 from the office of Accountant General, khairatabad, Hyderabad. In support of the above Petition, an affidavit was filed wherein it is stated by the plaintiff that he filed the suit on the basis of the will executed by Khaiserunnisa Begum in his favour on 26-9-1960 which is marked Ex. A-1 and bears the left thumb impression of the said khaiserunnisa Begum in token of execution of the will and the attestation. DW-2 mir Asad Ali Khan in his examination in chief has also denied the execution of the will. It has, therefore, become necessary that the will dated 26-6- 60 (Ex. A-l) has to be sent to the expert for his opinion to compare the thumb impression of Khaiserunnisa Begum and signature of Altafunnisa Begum, dfendant No. 1. The 1st defendant admitted her signatures on the written statement filed by her in the course of cross-examination on commission which have been marked as Exs. C-1 and C-2. It is further stated that khaiserunnisa Begum was getting commutation amounts from the office of pension payment and her thumb impressions are presently available in the accountant General s Office in the file bearing Khata No. 89 pertaining to j. C. P. O. No. 3211. Hence the file bearing Khata No. 89 may be summoned and from it the receipt containing the left thumb impression of khaiserunnisa Begum may be set to the Expert.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he also filed another petition to send the will deed Exhibit A-l dated 26-9-1960 along with the receipt containing the left thumb impression of late Smt. Khaiserunnisa Begum and the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant, altafunnisa Begum marked as Exs. C-1 and C-2 to any expert for comparing the thumb impression of Khaiserunnisa Begum and the signaturee of the 1st defendant with those on Ex. A-1. But that petition was not numbered and only LA. No. 896/81 was disposed of.

( 4 ) A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of defendants 6 to 9 by asad Ali Khan, the 6th respondent in this rivision petition, stating that the petitioner-plaintiff was not diligent in taking steps for summoning the file before starting his evidence and that he is fully aware that the will Ex. A-1 was denied by defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement and no reasons have been assigned for not filing the petition earlier. It is further stated that payment of the Jagir commtation ceased from 1st April, 1960 and! prior to that date the deceased Khaiserunisa Begum was drawing the amounts under her signature, and that in fact Exs. B-3 and B-4 establish that the deceased was putting signatures. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is also alleged that the said file is irrelevant, that the petition has been filed to delay the disposal of the case and that it is highly belated and has been filed with malafide intention to harass the respondents.

( 5 ) HAVING regard to the above facts, it is to be considered whether the order passed by the Court below is justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned is a. docket order, that the main case has not been declided and therefore he filed this revision under art. 227 of the Constitution to revise the order in