DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the Impugned order dated 10th November, 2003, passed by 4th Additional District Judge, unnao, rejecting the petitioners application (paper No. Ga-94) which the defendant petitioner had moved under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure for discovery by interrogatories.

( 2 ) A preliminary objection has been raised in the present writ petition as to whether the impugned order by which petitioners application moved under Order XI of the Code of Civil procedure for discovery by interrogatories being rejected by trial court shall be amenable to jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be maintainable against the impugned order?

( 3 ) THE brief fact of the case is that the opposite party No. 2 had filed a Regular Suit No. 150 of 2000 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Unnao for recovery of certain amounts as per schedule A annexed with the plaint along with interest. Petitioner is a registered company engaged in the business of manufacturing the finished leather. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are its director. According to averment contained in the writ petition on account of financial problem the unit of petitioner No. 1 has been closed since 1998. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 had filed a regular suit on the ground that they have alleged to supply certain raw materials, i. e. , raw hides to the petitioners for the manufacturing of finished leather in pursuance to alleged agreement. Inspite of alleged supply of raw hides the defendant petitioner had not paid the amount in question. On the other hand, the case of the defendant petitioner is that the plaintiff respondent had taken loan to the tune of Rs. 3,23,000 from the petitioners and when the petitioner had requested for repayment of the said loan the suit in question was filed. During the pendency of suit the petitioner had moved an application under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure to discover certain fact through interrogatories. The application has been registered as paper No. C-94. A copy of the application has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The interrogatories filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition contains certain queries, which have got bearing over the issue, involved in the suit in question. However, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties the application dated 24. 10. 2003, moved under Order XI of the Code of Civil procedure was rejected by the learned 4th Additional District Judge by impugned order dated 10. 11. 2003, contained in Annexure-I to the writ petition. Application was rejected by the learned additional District Judge on the ground that the application was moved with intention to prolong the litigation. It has been also observed by learned Additional District Judge that the query made by the defendant petitioner can be sorted out during the course of cross-examination of the witness.

( 4 ) WHILE assailing the impugned order Shri Manish Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an application moved under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure can be rejected only on the ground mentioned in Rule 12 of Order XI and not on other ground.

( 5 ) MOHD. Saeed learned Counsel for the respondents while defending the impugned order had raised preliminary objection that against the impugned order writ petition is not maintainable in view of recent amendment done in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner can challenge the impugned order only by filing an application under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure.

( 6 ) FOR convenience Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced as under : revision (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and to which no appeal lies thereto and if such subordinate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document