Honble YADAV, J.–Heard.

(2). Perused the order impugned dated 3.1.98 passed by the learned trial court allowing the application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC moved by the plaintiff-non-petitioners and rejecting the objection raised by the defendant-revisionists against receiving documentary evidence under the aforesaid Rule for the purposes of cross-examination of witnesses of the defendant-revisionists.

(3). It is urged by the learned counsel for the revisionists that learned trial court has committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order inasmuch as the documents received in evidence after settlement of issues are irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. According to the learned counsel for the revisionists, if the order impugned is allowed to stand it would occ- asion a failure of justice and irreparable loss to the defendant-revisionists.

(4). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is disputing the correctness of the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the revisionists on the ground that the documents which are required to be received in evidence either under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 or under S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document