JUDGMENT R.C. Deo Sharma, J. - This revision petition is directed against an order dated 17th August, 1982, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Lucknow, whereby he rejected the application of the applicant for sending the pronote and the receipt dated 13.9.1974 to the Security Press, Nasik, for examination and report about the time when the revenue stamps appearing on these papers were printed. It was alleged that the plaintiffOpposite party filed a suit on the basis of a pronote. The defendantapplicant interalia pleaded that the revenue stamps affixed on the pronote were not genuine and did not exist on the pronote at the time of execution. The suggestion, therefore, was that the stamps came into being at a later date and were, perhaps, affixed to the pronote later and after execution. An application to this effect had earlier been made by the defendantapplicant, which was rejected by an order dated 5th May, 1982 by the learned Additional Civil Judge on the ground that the defendant was prolonging the case by making such applications and his action appeared to be malafide. The applicant did not come in revision against that order and sometime later made another application to the same effect, which was rejected by the order dated 17.8.1982 which is now under challenge. Through a rejoinderaffidavit a copy of the letter from the Security Press, Nasik, dated 19th April, 1982 has been filed indicating that the Press had refused to give any opinion to a private party. Such opinion could be given only on a reference from a Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I feel that the revision application deserves to be rejected on the sole ground that the applicant's prayer was originally rejected on 5.5.1982 and no revision was filed against that order. Letter of the Security Press, Nasik, dated 19th April, 1982 was already in the possession of the applicant when that earlier application was made and rejected. This letter, therefore, was not a new circumstance which might have necessitated the making of a fresh application for sending she papers to Nasik. The subsequent application was also rejected on the ground that no other reasonable ground had been made out after the rejection of the earlier application. 2. This letter, therefore, was not a new circumstance which might have necessitated the making of a fresh application for sending she papers to Nasik. The subsequent application was also rejected on the ground that no other reasonable ground had been made out after the rejection of the earlier application. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party also argued that this was in the nature of an interim order and consequently no revision could be filed against such an order. This contention cannot, however, be accepted because under clause (ii) of the second proviso to section 155 of the CPC a revision petition could be entertained where it was felt that if the impugned order was allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom the order was made. However, since the order dated 5.5.1982 was not challenged and exactly on similar grounds another application was made which was rejected in August 1982, the court below was not unjustified in rejecting the application. The matter can, how ever, be agitated by the aggrieved party if an appeal is preferred against the decree to be passed by the court below in the original suit. The revision has, therefore, no force and is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The interim order of stay is vacated.