N.C.Jain, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the orders dated 5-8-1991 arm 22-8-1991. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the very outset that if the order dated 5-8-1991 is set aside, the order dated 22-8-1991 would automatically fall.

2. The facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the revision petition may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of the mortgaged property. The petitioner filed a list of 18 witnesses which has been declined after making a reference to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. It has been observed in the impugned order that no list of witnesses was furnished within the stipulated time and therefore, the witnesses cannot be allowed to be summoned. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to my notice that defendant No. 1 filed an application for recasting and resettlement of issues on 2-4-1991 and that the aforesaid application was decided on 30-7-1991. Thereafter, the application for summoning 18 witnesses was filed alongwith the diet money and since the application was filed within 3 days of the dismissal of the application for re-set