Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri P.N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 3.9.2016 passed by the Court of first instance in Original Suit No. 52 of 2015 by which the application purported to have been filed under Order X Rule 2 C.P.C. has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaring the sale-deed dated 15.12.2014 to be void and for a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. In the said suit, after parties have exchanged pleadings and the matter was fixed for framing of issues, the petitioners moved an application on 22.8.2016 under Order X Rule 2 C.P.C. contending that the plaint is very vague and, therefore, Saurabh Agarwal, Managing Director of the plaintiff-responent be summoned for examination to get elucidated the facts stated therein.

4. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 3.9.2016.

5. Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order is revisa