( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-9-1977 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Bangalore, in o. S. No. 3046 of 1972 on his file holding that certain documents produced by p. W. 3 were inadmissible and irrelervant. ( 2 ) AT the very out-set, an objection was raised to this revision petition by the learned counsel for the respondent stating that an order passed by the trial Court holding that the documents were irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence, would not amount to a case decided and, therefore, no revision lies to this Court. ( 3 ) IT is needless for me to point out that in order to exercise jurisdiction under S. 115 of the C. P. C, there must have been a case decided by the subordinate Court. The case must be one in which no appeal lies and further the subordinate Court must have, jn the decision of the case, exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law or, having assumed jurisdiction, it must have acted in excess of this jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only in these circumstances that this Court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order sitting in Revision. It is not every illegal order that is passed by the subordinate Court that this Court can interfere in revision. It may further be mentioned that the revisional powers are to be exercised by this Court in its discretion, to bring about substantial justice. ( 4 ) THE point, therefore, that arises before me for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned munsiff during hearing of the suit holding that the documents sought to be produced through P. W. 3 were inadmissible and irrelevant, would amount to a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 C. P. C. ( 5 ) THIS question came up before a full Bench of the Lahore High Court' in the case of B. B. Gurudevi v. Chaudhri md. Bakhsh FB (1 ). Bakhsh FB (1 ). In the course of the judgment, his Lordship Dalip singh, J. , at page 80 has observed, inter alia: "it seems clear to me that if a Court decides merely to summon a witness or rejects or admits a document as evidence in the case, or postpones or adjourns the case, such an order cannot possibly be held to be a case decided " this decision has been followed in the case of Sagarmal v. Gulab Chand (AIR 1968 Pun. and Har. 251. ). Thus it becomes clear that an order passed, during hearing of the case, re- jecting or admitting a document into evidence, would not amount to a case decided. If a party is aggrieved by such an order, he can press into service the ground in an appeal against the decree and not in revision. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner invited my attention to a decision of this Court in the case of raghunath Bhandary v. Sitharama punja (3) wherein his Lordship held that a, decision given by a Court regarding the admissibility of a document under the Stamp Act has to be challenged at that stage itself and therefore is revisable under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. That is, no doubt, true, because a provision has been made in the Stamp act itself in that regard that an objection must be taken at the earliest stage (vide S. 36 ). Hence, I am of the considered view that a mere order disallowing an application during cross- examination or an order rejecting a document during hearing or admitting a document into evidence would not amount to a "case decided- Hence, it is not revisable under Sec. 115 C. P. C- ( 7 ) IN the result, therefore, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .