1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The impugned order dated 20.5.2008 passed by the court below in Civil Revision No. 1227 of 2008 does not decide anything, save and except, holding that the documents which were filed by the intervenor would not have been taken on the records and admitted in evidence at the instance of defendant, tenant-petitioner. The intervention application of a third person in a suit for eviction having been rejected by an earlier order of the court below any document filed by the intervenor could neither be relied by the defendant tenant nor could be taken on record by way of his evidence.

3. Considering aforesaid nature of the order as also the specific defence of the petitioner, who is defendant in the eviction suit, this Court therefore would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

4. Coming to now Civil Revision No. 1421 of 2008, this Court would find that by a separate impugned order dated 21.5.2008 the court below has rejected large number of documents sought to be filed by the petitioner, who is defendant in the eviction suit, for its being admitted in evidence on the ground that they were not presented at the appropriate tim