1. In a suit for damages, the plaintiff applied that a summons should be issued to the defendants as his witness and that, certain interrogatories should be addressed to them. The learned trial Judge rejected his prayer for addressing interrogatories to the defendants, but has ordered that summons should be issued against the defendants. It is this order which has given rise to the present revisional application.

2. Mr. Datar concedes that ordinarily an in-terlocutory order of this kind would not be sub-ject to the revisionfll jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when the order appears to have been issued by the learned Judge in the exercise of his discretion. But he contends that the order is inconsistent with the practice generally prevailing in our Courts and seeks to introduce a practice which has been condemned by the Privy Council in very strong terms.

Mr. Datar has also relied upon Circular No. 161 of the Circulars issued by this Court in the Civil Manual. This circular has invited the attention of the subordinate Judges to the observations of the Privy Council in -- Kishori Lal v. Chunni Lal, 31 All 116 at p. 122 (PC) (A). Their Lordships of the Privy Council ha