JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.7.1995 passed by First Civil Judge Class II, Morena. Learned counsel contended that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-non-applicant against the defendant for ejectment under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act Defendants father was a tenant in a very big shop. As there was a big shop from the time 'of his father on the ground of need of his son, the plaintiff had taken a bigger share under a compromise and a smaller portion was left with the petitioner. In order to establish the stand taken in the written-statement he moved an application directing the plaintiff to produce the rent deed. When the rent deed was not produced, he moved an application purporting it to be under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC requesting the Court to direct the plaintiff to file the map of the building in which the disputed shop is situated. The plaintiff mentioned that the rent deed was filed in some other Court. The petitioner thereafter moved an application stating that in that case in which the rent deed is allowed to have been filed previously by the plaintiff, but he came to known that the original rent note was not there. He moved another application mentioning this fact. The plaintiff then stated that the document was in the brief of the counsel, who is dead and the file was not available. The plaintiff also filed an affidavit of the son of the counsel in that regard. The petitioner thereafter moved an application that the plaintiff be directed to file the map of the whole of the house in which the shop in dispute is situated. This application has been rejected by the impugned order. He also contended that he moved another application in view of the latest amended Rules in Civil Court Rules, whereby a provision was made that the plaintiff shall furnish the copies of the documents filed by him to the defendant on demand. That application has also been rejected by the impugned order. I have considered the contentions. So far as the first contention is concerned, it may be mentioned that the rejection of the application for direction to furnish map of the whole building, in any case, cannot be said to amount a case decided. That application has also been rejected by the impugned order. I have considered the contentions. So far as the first contention is concerned, it may be mentioned that the rejection of the application for direction to furnish map of the whole building, in any case, cannot be said to amount a case decided. It is purely an interlocutory order in nature and no revision lies against such an order. The learned counsel referred to Bhagwandas v. Gyanchand (1982 MPRCJ Note 82), wherein this Court observed as to when appointment of commissioner is necessary in eviction suit. The question as to whether revision was competent or not was not considered. Apart from it, I may also observe that as the plaintiff did not file old rent note, the consequence-which the law permits will have to be followed. As far as the second contention is concerned, I may mention that the amendment in Rules amounts to amendment in procedural law and it has retrospective effect. They should have been made applicable to the case in hand, as well. The learned Court should have, directed the plaintiff to give copies of the document filed with the plaint by the plaintiff. I think order in that regard should be made, without issuing notice at this initial stage. This revision petition is therefore dismissed with the observation that the learned trial Court shall direct the plaintiff to furnish copies of the document filed with the plaint.