MILAP CHANDRA, J.—The revision petition No. 26/89 has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 19.11.88 by which he did not receive supplementary bill filed by the petitioner The revision petitions No. 35, 36 and 37/89 have been filed against similar orders of the Civil Judge, Merta dated 17.12.88 by which documents filed by the petitioners in their cases were not received. All these four revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as a common question is involved in them.

2. In all the four revision petitions, the learned counsel for the non petitioners have raised a preliminary objections that no revision petition lies under sec. 115 C.P.C. against an order passed under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. In support of their contention, they relied upon the decisions of their Lordships of toe Supreme Court in Managing Director (MIC) Hindustan, Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad vs. Ajit Prasad Tarve, Managrr Purchase and Stores, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanager, Hyderabad (1), M.L Sethi vs. R.P. Kapoor (2), Manak Chand Nandi vs. Devdas Nandi (3), Pandurang Dhondi vs. Maruti Hari, Jadhav, (4) and also on the decision of this co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document