Hon’ble A.N. Varma, J.—The opposite party No. 1, i.e. the Plaintiff before the trial Court, instituted a Suit, being Suit No. 209 of 1986, for specific performance of contract against the petitioners, i.e. Defendants. During the pendency of the proceedings the petitioners preferred an application for issuance of a Commission. The trial Court vide its order dated 1.7.2004 rejected the said application, against which the petitioners approached the District Judge in Revision under Section 115 of C.P.C., who vide its judgment and order dated 15.10.2004 dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability. It is against the said judgment and order that the petitioners have approached this Court through the instant writ petition.

2. I have heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners as

well as Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

3. Sri Tripathi submitted that the learned Courts below committed a

manifest error in dismissing the Revision on the ground of maintainability. As per his submission the application which was preferred for issuance of Commission was for the purpose to ascertain as to whether or not the bricks which were supplied to t