JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Ifrahim, Commissioner, Jhansi Division, recommending that the revision against the order dated July 7, 1973 passed by the Judicial Officer (R.), Karwi, Banda in Case No. 527 under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act may be allowed and the case be remanded for proceeding afresh according to law. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The revisionists Ram Kripal and others had filed a suit seeking declaration of Sirdari right in certain land. During the course of the proceedings plaintiff-revisionists had moved an application for requisition of the original file of a case under Section 240-G, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, Fehrisht Basta, Register Malikan and Khatauni for 1363 to 1365 Fasli. The trial court by its order dated July 7, 1973 rejected this application. A revision has been filed against this order. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the trial court has erred in law in rejecting the application for requisitioning the records, that the Copying Department had refused to issue copies of the relevant papers from original file of a case under Section 240-G and also of the Register Malikan and hence summoning of these records was essential for the just decision of the case, and that though a certified copy of the Khatauni for 1363 to 1365 Fasli was on the record there was a difference between the copy and the original and hence it was essential to summon the original Khatauni. As regards the first two documents, the learned trial court has erroneously taken the view that in the absence of the certified copies the original papers could not be requisitioned. Where the authority empowered to issue certified copy has refused to issue such copy, the original record can be requisitioned. It is also the duty of the trial court in such a case to requisition the original record in the interest of justice. As regards the original Khatauni for 1963-65 Fasli, the trial court has stated that in the case of any difference in the certified copies, the original can be summoned for perusal at the time of arguments. This is not a correct view of law. As regards the original Khatauni for 1963-65 Fasli, the trial court has stated that in the case of any difference in the certified copies, the original can be summoned for perusal at the time of arguments. This is not a correct view of law. Since the Khatauni is being produced as part of the documentary evidence by the parties, it is essential that it should be produced at the stage of recording the evidence and not at the stage of arguments. The trial court has, therefore, wrongly refused to requisition the original Khatauni. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has objected that a revision cannot be filed against an inter locutary order, and that the learned Commissioner has erred in law in not holding that the revision was not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has referred to Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. M/s. Ramgarh Farms and Ind. Ltd., 1969 R.D. 227, in which a learned single Member has observed as follows:- "The Judicial Officer who rejected the application for filing papers did not decide any case as the phrase is understood in law courts. It might be a matter for the same court to reconsider or for the appellate court to see the necessity of those papers, but it is certainly not matter for revision for this Board at all. As already stated, there is no case decided and therefore there need be no interference in revision. It is under the discretion of the Judicial Officer to admit papers or not to admit those papers or to fix certain terms for the filing of such papers." The learned counsel for the revisionists has challenged the above view and has referred to 1957 R.D. 411, in which a learned Bench of the Board has held as follows:- "In Section 5 of Chapter II of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as amended upto date, it has been laid down by the Legislature that the control of all judicial matters is vested in the Board of Revenue. Consequently, wherever there is an illegal exercise of discretion by one of the subordinate courts, it is the duty of the Board of Revenue to correct it once the record is before the Board. Consequently, wherever there is an illegal exercise of discretion by one of the subordinate courts, it is the duty of the Board of Revenue to correct it once the record is before the Board. The provisions pertaining to revision contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or any other Acts which are administered by the Board of Revenue in their judicial capacity are implementary and not restrictive of the over all supervisory powers of the Board of Revenue over the subordinate revenue courts. Consequently, only that interpretation has to be put on them as is consistent with the exercise of the power of correction vested in the Board under Section 5 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Hence Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would apply to interlocutary as well as final orders in all those cases which fall within the purview of Schedule II of that Act." 6. To my mind, the view taken by the learned Bench is correct. A revision would lie both against interlocutory orders as well as final orders, the deciding criterion being whether there has been any material illegality or irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice. Where a miscarriage of justice is being caused to a party by an interlocutary order of the trial court, which is patently illegal, the Board of Revenue is not merely empowered but in also bound by the provisions of law to interfere in revision. In the present case, it has been fully established that the order of the trial court is patently illegal and would result in serious miscarriage of justice. The learned Commissioner has rightly recommended that the order of the trial court deserves to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has also contended that the relevancy of the papers proposed to be requisitioned could not be looked into without the production of the certified copies which could have been legally obtained by the revisionists. This argument totally overlooks the fact that the Copying Department had refused to issue certified copies to the revisionists in the case of the first two records and in the case of the third records i.e., Khatauni, a discrepancy between original record and the certified copy has been alleged. This argument totally overlooks the fact that the Copying Department had refused to issue certified copies to the revisionists in the case of the first two records and in the case of the third records i.e., Khatauni, a discrepancy between original record and the certified copy has been alleged. In the circumstances, the trial court can only determine the question of relevancy of the documents after it has requisitioned and perused those records and not earlier. 8. The result is that I accept the reference made by the learned Commissioner and allow the revision. The impugned order of the trial court is set aside. The trial court shall now proceed to decide the case in accordance with law after requisitioning the original records in question.