H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri. T. Narayanaswamy and Sri. Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. ( 2 ) ). This revision arises from the order under Order 15, Rule 5, CPC whereby the trial Court had rejected the application for summoning of certain documents by the defendant from the plaintiff. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that the application could have been moved under Order 11, Rule 14 and not under Order 16, Rule 5, CPC which deals with issuance of summons to a person to produce documents. ( 3 ) I don't want to make any observation as to further the Court below is correct in making these observations that application could have been moved under Order 11, Rule 14, CPC instead of moving application under Order 16, Rule 5. Any way, here the Court below has rejected the application filed as according to its opinion and view, the defendant-revision petitioner failed to make out a case for summoning the documents from the plaintiff and the purpose of application is to protract and delay the litigation. Whether the Court below is correct or has committed an error in so opining is a different question. The jurisdiction of this Court in such cases is confined to jurisdictional error and not to simple error of fact and law. Even if according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the Court below erred in so rejecting the application that no cause has been made out or in opining that the application was filed just to protract the proceedings, this cannot be termed as jurisdictional error. Errors of fact or law otherwise no doubt can be raised before or be pointed to the appellate Court and the appellate Court may consider. But, revisional jurisdiction is being confined to jurisdictional errors coming within clauses (a), (b) or (c ). This Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order in case where there is a case of simple error of fact and law. Apart from that, this order cannot be said to amount to a case decided. It is only an order in the progress of the case. Thus considered in my opinion, the revision petition is misconceived. This Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order in case where there is a case of simple error of fact and law. Apart from that, this order cannot be said to amount to a case decided. It is only an order in the progress of the case. Thus considered in my opinion, the revision petition is misconceived. As I mentioned earlier, if there is any error in passing of this order, it is always open to the applicant to raise these pleas in view of Section 105 read with Order 41, Rule 27, C. P. C. to avail those remedies at proper stage in case suit is decreed against him and he has to file the appeal. Subject to these observations, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .