Y VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. K NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are directed against the orders passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Bellary, dismissing applications filed by the defendant seeking leave of the Court to serve the interrogatories. An application supported by an affidavit and the interrogatories which were sought to be delivered to the plaintiffs, appears to have been filed and the learned Judge while considering that application came to the conclusion that in the present case the interrogatories that were sought to be delivered to the plaintiff are matters relating to the evidence and therefore cannot be allowed to be delivered. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in these revision petitions.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that these revision petitions are not maintainable on the ground that the refusal by the court to give leave to a party to deliver the interrogatories is not a case docided. In support of his Preliminary objection, two decisions are relied upon, one is a decision of the Judicial Commissioner's Court. Sind, in the case of Yusiffally Alibboy & Co. v. Haji Mohomed, AIR1920 Sind 1. In that case it was held that:

(3.) In Raj Mohan Saha v. Maharaja of Tripura, AIR 1961 Trip. 23. it was stated by the Judicial Commissioner's Court thus: