Judgment This is a revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. from an order passed by the Civil Judge (Class-II) Morena in C. A. No. 3-4/1981 by which the Court allowed an application of non-applicant (No.1) Om Prakash and ordered requisition of two records from the Property Tax Officer, Morena. The petitioner Babulal filed the aforementioned suit against the non-applicant (No.1) Om Prakash and non-applicant (No.2) Pannalal for a declaration that a decree of eviction passed in an eviction suit (No.111 -A of 1976) in favour of non-applicant (No.1) Om Prakash and against non-applicant (No.2) Pannalal was not binding on the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed for a permanent injunction for restraining non-applicant Om Prakash from executing the eviction decree. The petitioner applied and obtained an exparte temporary injunction against non-applicant (No.1) Om Prakash on 22-1-1981. The trial Court, however, vacated the temporary injunction order on 9-3-1981. The petitioner preferred an appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 1981) in the Court of the District Judge, Morena who passed an order on 29th Aug. 81, vacating the trial Court's order dated 2-3-1981 and remanded the case for receiving documentary evidence for the purpose of determining whether the petitioner had a prima-facie case for issuance of a temporary injunction. The certified copies of the proformas show the name of petitioner Babulal on the back of these fotmas on serial No. 3in the lists of tenants. The petitioner, however, opposed the application dated 31-11-1981 filed by non-appllicant (No.1) Om Prakash. The first ground taken before me is that the trial Court acted without jurisdiction because the appellate order did not contemplate an enquiry in which oral evidence could be taken. Now the impugned order is for sending requisition for records from the office of the Property Tax Officer. The order does not mention that any oral evidence would be taken. Hence there is no force in this ground which is premature. The second objection is that the trial Court did not have any jurisdiction to pass the order in view of section 25 (1) Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Sthawar Sampatti Kar Adhiniyam, 1964 (No. 14 of 1964). Now, it will be for the Property. Hence there is no force in this ground which is premature. The second objection is that the trial Court did not have any jurisdiction to pass the order in view of section 25 (1) Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Sthawar Sampatti Kar Adhiniyam, 1964 (No. 14 of 1964). Now, it will be for the Property. Officer, Morena to raise objections, if any to the production of the records that may be requisitioned from him The petitioners opportunity to object of the use of the record in the course of the inquiry in the Court below will come only when the applicant No.1 seeks to use it in Court after their production. Till then any objection by the petitioner under section 25 (1) would be clearly premature. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order, if allowed to stand would neither cause failure of justice nor would it cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. Revision dismissed.