The High Court has the power to revise an interlocutory order under Section 115 of the CPC only if it is of the category falling under clause (a) or clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1).

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 15th January 1979 of an Additional District Judge disallowing certain interrogatories to be delivered to the plaintiff-respondent. 444

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition succinctly are that wayback in December 1977 the respondent instituted a suit against the petitroner for recovery of Rs. 47,51706 P on account of the price of goods of the total value of Rs 34,480. 50 P which were despatched by the plaintiff- respondent to Ahrnedabad against 14 goods receipts issued by the defendant- petitioner, who carries on the business of a public carrir, during the period 5th May 1975 to 19th May 1975 as per annexure a to the plaint. It was alleged that the said goods were consigned to XX self and were to be delivered by the defendant-petitioner only on production of the goods receipts issued by them. the said goods receipts having been endorsed in blank by the plaintiff- respondent in favour of their banker viz. State Bank of India, to enable them to collect the value of the respective invoices from the respondent s customers. The procedure was that on payment of the price of goods as per invoice and the demand draft accompanying the goods receipts, the banker of the respondent was to endorse the consignments in favour of the concerned customer and the goods could then be delivered by the defendant-petitioner on production of the goods receipts. However, the defendant-petitioner did not deliver the goods to the plaintiff-respondent when the original goods receipts were produced for taking delivery of the consignments by the latter on account of their customer not honouring the demand drafts and paying the price of the goods as stipulated to the banker of the respondent. The respondent repeatedly called upon the petitioner to celivel the goods but there was no response. It was, therefore, averred that the petitioner had misappropriated the goods or in the alternative he had delivered the same to some unauthorised person without production of the original goods receipts.

( 3 ) THE stand taken by the petitioner in the written statement, inter alia, was that the goods booked by the plaintiff-respondent in the came of different persons were not delivered to them but were deliverer! to M/s Zeal Traders of Ahmcdabad by the plaintiff-respondent themselves and price thereof was duly paid by the said M/s. Zeal Traders. The petitioner further asserted that Shri S. J. Walia, who was the representative of the plaintiff-respondent at Ahmedabad bad received the delivery of all the goods and settled all the claims, if any, finally on behalf of the plaintiff. They further averred that Shri Walia had been receiving the goods from hem even earlier on behalf of the plaintiff without production of goods receipts and they adverted to a letter dated 16th July 1975 written by Shri Walia on behalf of the plaintiff that there were no disputes between the parties about the delivery of the goods. According to the petitioner, the payments made by M/s Zeal Traders to the plaintiff were duly entered in the account books of M/s Zeal Traders.

( 4 ) IN the replication filed by the plaintiff-respondent, it was categorically stated that all the consignments were booked in favour of the plaintiff themselves as consignee and not in the name of any customer. They vehemently refuted the averment of the petitioner that the goods in question were delivered by the plaintiff to M/s. Zea! Traders, as alleged. The plaintiff re-affirmed that the question of the goods being delivered to anyone without the production of the original goods receipts did not arise and ihe original goods receipts were still with them They denied that Shri SJ. Walia was their authorised representative at Ahmedabad and as such was competent to receive the delivery of the goods without the production of the goods receipts They also denied the contention that the plaintiff s representative delivered any such goods to M