BULAKI LAL Vs. MEWA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mannu Chaudhery, Advocate for the caveator-respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9-12-2005 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 12, Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 696 of 2003 and order dated 21- 10-2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 10, Allahabad in Original Suit No. 761 of 2002.

(3.) IN the circumstances, I am of the considered view that no injury has been caused to the petitioner on account of the impugned orders. No error has been committed by the Revisional Court as well. IN fact a revision under Section 115 CPC against an order confirming the Commissioner's report subject to evidence in the suit does not amount to a case decided. IN fact the petitioners were not liable to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. Since the Court has left it open, conformation of the Commissioner's report subject to evidence, it is absolutely clear that the intention of the trial judge was to permit the parties to raise any other objection in respect of the Commissioner's report after evidence is recorded. IN the circumstances, the right of the petitioners to challenge the report still exists and no prejudice has been caused to them.