ORDER
1. This revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, hereinafter called 'the Act', is directed against the order dated 15th September, 1989, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Banda, exercising the power of Judge, Small Cause Court, in suit No. 14 of 1987, between Hazari Lat and Siya Saran & others, whereby the learned Judge has held the document 52C, which is, indisputably, a copy of an award, to be inadmissible in evidence.
2. Under section 25 of the Act only such decrees or orders are open to challenge which are made in any case decided. It cannot be gainsaid that any order which docs not adjudicate upon any right or obligation of the parties in controversy cannot amount to a case decided, which is a condition precedent for exercise of powers under section 25 of the Act. In its decision, rendered in the Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokal Chand, reported in AIR 1967 SC 799, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that orders regarding summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and admissibility of a document or a relevancy of a question are interlocutory orders. They are steps taken towards the final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their cases in the pending proceedings, they regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties.
3. Sri Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, places reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. M/s. Dilip Construction Co., reported in AIR 1969 SC 1238. The reliance upon this case by the learned counsel is misplaced inasmuch as the said case is not an authority for the proposition that an order deciding admissibility of a document amounts to adjudication upon any light or liability of the parties in controversy or such an order affects their any right Or liability permitting the court to interfere therewith in its revisional jurisdiction. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the question of bar against an instrument not duly stamped being acted upon.
4. For what has been said above the court is clearly of the opinion that the impugned order neither adjudicates upon any right or obligation of the parties in controversy nor affects any of their right or liability and as such it is not revisable under section 25 of the Act. In any case, if there is any error, defect or irregularity in the impugned order adjudicating upon the admissibility of the document it will be upon to challenge by the applicant in proceedings against the final order and for this reason also it will be wrong to interfere with the same at this stage. The revision is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
5. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the applicant, if possible, within a week.
6. Revision dismissed.