D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, at length and in detail. ( 2 ) BY the impugned order the prayer of the applicant to appoint a Commissioner for making local investigation in respect of the property which is the subject-matter of the contract for sale, the specific performance whereof is prayed for in the suit, has been turned down by the order impugned in the instant revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code. ( 3 ) SECOND proviso to Section 115 of the Code, as mended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, mandate that the revisional Court shall not vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue made in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where- (I) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or causeirreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. ( 4 ) UPON hearing the counsel for the applicant and examining the impugned order, the Court is clearly of the opinion that none of the aforesaid two conditions laid down by the second proviso to Section 115 of the Code is satisfied. The impugned order if varied or reversed would not finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings therein. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would not occasion any failure of justice or cause any irreparable injury to the applicant. The status of the report of the Commissioner is not more than that of a rebuttable evidence. the plea in support whereof the report of the Commissioner may be relied can be substantiated by other documentary and oral evidence. ( 5 ) THUS, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code is made out. ( 6 ) THE revision lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. Revision dismissed. .