Sat Pal, J.

1. This petition has been directed against the Order dated 2.8.1997, passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27(b) C.P.C. The learned Additional District Judge has observed that the proposed additional evidence was very much essential for the effective adjudication of matter in controversy between the parties. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent.

2. Mr. Manjul Sud, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that a revision petition Under Section 115 C.P.C. is not maintainable against an order passed by the learned lower appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27(b) C.P.C. in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gurdev Singh and Ors. v. Mehanga Ram and Anr., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3572.

3. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the revision petition is maintainable, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in an earlier judgment in Sarda and Ors. v. Manikkoth Kombra Rajendran, 1996(2) Rent Revenue Reporter