JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

2. The petitioners who are defendants in the suit have assailed the order dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur in Civil Revision No.148 of 2007 whereby the revision court has allowed the application of respondents/plaintiffs for appointment of court commissioner.

3. The facts, in brief, are that respondent no.1 and 2 instituted a suit bearing Original Suit No.589 of 2003 praying for a decree of injunction in respect of their 1/3 share and rendition of account in respect of jwellery business being run in the suit property.

4. The suit has been instituted on the ground that the suit property was joint property and was purchased in the name of Urmila Devi, Lalti Devi, and Bindu Devi through various sale deeds. The construction lying before the sale deed on the suit property was demolished, and a house and shop were constructed over the said suit property after obtaining permission from the competent authority. It is further pleaded that it was agreed upon between the brothers i.e. husband of Urmila Devi, Lalti Devi, and Bindu Devi that the house shall remain joint property, and business in the house shall be run in the name of the wife of Bindu Bihari Verma (plaintiff no.1) and Nanhe Lal Verma (defendant no.2). It was also agreed that business shall be run under the supervision of Nanhe Lal Verma and in the name of 'Kirti Kunj Jwellers. In the said business, Urmila Devi-plaintiff no.2 wife of Bindu Bihari Verma (plaintiff no.1), and Lalti Devi wife of Nanhe Lal Verma-(defendant no.1) will be sleeping partners, and Nanhe Lal Verma will act as an acting partner.

5. It is further pleaded that respondents/plaintiff came to know that Bindu Devi-defendant no.3 and Ram Asrey Verma-defendant no.4 adopted the son of Lalti Devi and Nanhe Lal Verma. The respondents/plaintiffs further pleaded that they came to know that share of Bindu Devi in the suit property has been given to Nanhe Lal Verma which led to creating a doubt in the mind of respondents/plaintiffs that their share may be usurped by the petitioners/defendants. The respondents/plaintiffs demanded the petitioners/defendants to show accounts of the business, but petitioners/defendants refused to show the account of the business which led to filing the present suit praying for the aforesaid relief.

6. In the said suit, respondents/plaintiffs submitted an application 8Ga on 08.12.2003 under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to prepare a map of the suit property and also make an inventory of gold, silver, and jwellery in the shop and the accounts of the business.

7. The aforesaid application was contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing objection 20Ga contending inter-alia that application 8Ga is misconceived.

8. The application 8Ga was rejected by the trial count on the ground that more than three and half years have passed since the institution of the suit, but respondents/plaintiffs did not press for disposal of the said application, therefore, at this stage, no ground is made out for entertaining the application 8Ga. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the application 8Ga vide order dated 26.07.2007.

9. The respondents/plaintiffs preferred Civil Revision No.148 of 2007 against the order dated 26.07.2007 on the ground that the trial court has committed material irregularity in rejecting the application 8Ga of the respondents/plaintiffs. The aforesaid revision was contested by the petitioners/defendants contending interalia that revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. against an order rejecting or allowing the application is not maintainable.

10. The revision court vide order dated 03.07.2013 allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the application 8Ga under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. afresh.

11. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that an order allowing or rejecting the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. is an inte