HUKUMCHAND Vs. NEMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel.

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.7.1995 passed by First Civil Judge Class II, Morena.

(3.) I have considered the contentions. So far as the first contention is concerned, it may be mentioned that the rejection of the application for direction to furnish map of the whole building, in any case, cannot be said to amount a case decided. It is purely an interlocutory order in nature and no revision lies against such an order. The learned counsel referred to Bhagwandas v. Gyanchand (1982 MPRCJ Note 82), wherein this Court observed as to when appointment of commissioner is necessary in eviction suit. The question as to whether revision was competent or not was not considered. Apart from it, I may also observe that as the plaintiff did not file old rent note, the consequence -which the law permits will have to be followed. As far as the second contention is concerned, I may mention that the amendment in Rules amounts to amendment in procedural law and it has retrospective effect. They should have been made applicable to the case in hand, as well. The learned Court should have, directed the plaintiff to give copies of the document filed with the plaint by the plaintiff. I think order in that regard should be made, without issuing notice at this initial stage.