Honble YADAV, J.–Heard. (2). Perused the order impugned dated 30.1.1999 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application moved by the defendant-revisionist under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC. (3). Without delineating the facts of the present revision it is to be noticed that an identical question came up for consideration before me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Chandra Bai & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 222/98, decided on 4.3.1999 (1), wherein it was held that against an order either receiving documentary evidence under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 Order 13 CPC or refusing to receive such documentary evidence under the aforesaid sub-rule, no revision petition under amended Sec. 115 CPC is maintainable. (4). It is urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. A.L. Chopra that while I was deciding the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra), two decisions rendered by two different Division Benches of this Court is the case of Bharosi Lal vs. Mool Chand (1991 (2) RLW 292) and in the case of Chouth Mal vs. Fazal Hussain (1991 (1) RLW 9). were not brought to my notice wherein it is ruled that against an order refusing to receive documentary evidence under O. 13 R. 2 CPC , revision petition is maintainable under amended Sec. 115 CPC. (5) On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta urged that in both the aforesaid decisions of the Division Benches, holding that a revision petition against refusal to receive documentary evidence under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2, Order 13 is maintainable under amended Sec. 115 CPC, the true import of the mandatory provisions envisaged under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 115 r/w. O. 14, R.3 CPC and the mandatory provisions postulated under cl. (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC had escaped the notice of the learned Judges constituting two different Division Benches of this Court. According to Mr. Gupta if the aforesaid mandatory provisions would have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges constituting two different Division Benches of this Court then the result of the aforesaid two decisions would have been otherwise and the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench would have arrived to the same conclusion on which this Court has arrived in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra). (6). (6). It is conceded at the Bar that the decision rendered by me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra), holding that no revision petition under amended Sec. 115 CPC is maintainable against an order of receiving documentary evidence under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC is not in conflict with the two decisions rendered by two different Division Benches, therefore, it does not require reconsideration. However, the proposition propounded by me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra) to the effect that even an order of refusing to receive documentary evidence under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC is not revisable under amended Sec. 115 CPC there is conflict between the decisions rendered by me and the two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, therefore, it requires reconsideration. (7). I have given my thoughtful anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. (8). It is true that the ratio of the decision rendered by me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra) is to the effect that no revision petition is maintainable under amended Sec. 115 CPC either against an order receiving documentary evidence or against an order refusing to receive documentary evidence under O. 13 R. 2 CPC whereas the ratio of the two decisions of the Division Benches is that against an order refusing to receive documentary evidence under O. 13 R. 2 CPC, a revision petition is maintainable under amended Sec. 115 CPC. It is further to be noticed that the ratio in the case of Chouth Mal (supra) rendered by the Division Bench of principal seat at Jodhpur, is confined upto the point of reference made to it relating to maintainability of revision under amended Sec. 115 CPC against refusal to receive documentary evidence under O. 13 R. 2 CPC but in the case of Bharosi Lal (supra) rendered by the Division Bench of Jaipur Bench the learned Judges, constituting the Division Bench travelled beyond the terms of reference made to them and observed in paragraph 25 of their judgment that if in a case, without the existence of sufficient cause, the Court allows an application filed under O. 13, R. 2 CPC then it will have to be held that the Court has committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction of entertaining application under O.13, R. 2 CPC and such order is revisable under amended Sec. 115 CPC. (9). From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that although the terms of reference in the case of Bharosi Lal ( supra) was confined only upto maintainability of revision under amended Sec. 115 CPC against an order refusing to accept documentary evidence under O. 13 R. 2 CPC yet the learned Judge constituting the Division Bench in the aforesaid case travelled beyond the terms of reference. The terms of reference is quoted by the learned Judges themselves in paragraph 1 of their judgment. In my humble opinion, even if the aforesaid observation made by the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench in the case of Bharosi Lal (supra) is taken to be beyond the terms of reference yet the judicial propriety de-mand that such observation made by a Division Bench of this Court should be given highest respect. (10). Since the decision rendered by me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra) is in conflict with the decision rendered by two Division Benches of this Court and the questions involved in this revision petition are of general importance, therefore, it deserve to be authoritatively decided by a larger Bench of this Court for the reasons given hereinbelow. (11). Since the decision rendered by me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra) is in conflict with the decision rendered by two Division Benches of this Court and the questions involved in this revision petition are of general importance, therefore, it deserve to be authoritatively decided by a larger Bench of this Court for the reasons given hereinbelow. (11). It is well to remember that Parliament had undertaken an extensive exercise to amend the various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure by Act No. 104 of 1976 to achieve an avowed object to get a civil suit decided expeditiously and also to get a decree executed as early as possible. No time is ripe for the higher Courts to take judicial notice of the fact that nowadays if a civil suit is filed by father then with great difficulty a decree is obtainable by his son and not by him during his life time and still there is no guarantee whether after death of father, his son would be entitled to enjoy the fruits of the decree or not. I my humble opinion if off and on the scope of amended Sec. 115, is widened, ignoringthe mandatory provisions of sub-rule (2) of Sec. 115, Order 13 R. 3 and also mandatory provisions of clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC while interpreting the scope of O. 13, R. 2 CPC then the possibility to get the decree and its fruits might travel beyond one generation more which would be an anathema to the present delivery of justice system prevailing in our country. If this Court continues to entertain revision petitions against each and every interlocutory order and staying further proceedings of the original civil suit pending before the trial Courts, which is appealable then it would lead to distortion of quick delivery justice system against the legislative intent of amended Sec. 115 CPC. (12). I am of the view that the peoples faith in the present delivery of justice system is to be detained by higher Courts which are supposed to strengthen it. Owing to downturn of peoples confidence, the present justice delivery system is at its cross-road. The problem starts from the date, when the suit is filed. Adjournments after adjournments are sought, ignoring the mandatory provisions envisaged under O.17 CPC. Owing to downturn of peoples confidence, the present justice delivery system is at its cross-road. The problem starts from the date, when the suit is filed. Adjournments after adjournments are sought, ignoring the mandatory provisions envisaged under O.17 CPC. Even against inter locutory order passed by learned trial Courts, revision petitions are filed in the garb of newly inserted proviso (b) of sub-sec. (1) 115 CPC on the ground that the order if allowed to stand would occasion failure of justice and cause irreparable injury, ignoring the mandatory provisions envisaged under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 115 CPC, which clearly provides that the High Court shall not under amended Sec. 115 vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. It goes without saying that in almost every civil suit filed before the trial Court, if a decree is passed it is made appealable under Sec. 96 CPC. I am of the view that any interlocutory order, including an order either refusing to receive documentary evi-dence or receiving such documentary evidence within the meaning of O.13 R. 2 CPC, in a civil suit which is appealable, no revision is maintainable within the meaning of sub-sec. (2) of Sec.115 CPC. Once documentary evidence is received in evidence under O.13, R. 2 CPC, giving opportunity to adduce evidence and giving opportunity also to the other side to rebut it, no prejudice would be caused to any of the party to the suit hence question of failure of justice or irreparable injury does not arise. The trial Courts under O. 13 R. 2 CPC are to confine its scrutiny only upto authenticity of documentary evidence sought to be adduced after settlement of issues and its delaying effect at the stage of its reception of documentary evidence under the aforesaid rule leading the determination relating to its relevancy, admissibility and reliability to be decided at the end of the trial of the suit while delivering its judgment so that the appellate Court may reassess the question relating to its relevancy, admissibility and reliability decided by trial Courts. As regards delaying effect at the stage of reception of documentary evidence under the aforesaid rule, the trial Court may compensate the party against whom such documentary evidence are filed after settlement of issues by awarding reasonable costs for the inconvenience suffered by such party and also do so invariably by giving opportunity to adduce documentary evidence in rebuttal. The documentary evidence so received after settlement of issues under O. 13, R. 2 CPC may remain on record as documentary evidence filed by the parties under O. 13, R. 1 CPC at the time of settlement of issues. To my mind after awarding a reasonable cost and giving an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal to the party against whom such documentary evidence are received under O.13, R. 2 CPC, the document so received should be given the same treatment by Trial Courts as are given to the documentary evidence filed by the parties at the time of settlement of issues under O.13 R. 1 CPC. (13). I have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of Code Civil Procedure are nothing but detail provisions on the principle of natural justice enacted with a view to subserve ends of justice and not to defeat them. Now the burning point of today is that a lot of delay is being caused in deciding civil suits, which is to be ar-rested by interpreting Or. 13 R. 2 CPC in the light of the mandatory provisions discussed hereinabove to suit the need of today. (14). Before parting with the discussion relating to maintainability of revision petitions under amended Sec. 115 CPC I would like to observe that the exercise of positive direction by the learned trial Court receiving documentary evidence u/O. 13 R. 2 CPC does not fall with the expression ``case decided. (14). Before parting with the discussion relating to maintainability of revision petitions under amended Sec. 115 CPC I would like to observe that the exercise of positive direction by the learned trial Court receiving documentary evidence u/O. 13 R. 2 CPC does not fall with the expression ``case decided. In fact, receiving documentary evidence u/O. 13 R. 2 CPC after framing of issues does not affect rights and liabilities of the parties inasmuch as the question relating to relevancy admissibility and reliability of documents touching their rights and liabilities is to be decided by the learned trial Courts at a subsequent stage of the suit as envisaged u/O. 13 R. 3 CPC and if the subsequent stage of the suit is interpreted at the end of the trial of the suit while delivering judgments by trial Courts subject to reassessment by appellate Court in appeal then it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that receiving of documentary evidence u/O. 13 R. 2 CPC after framing of issues if allowed to stand it would occasion a failure of justice or it would cause irrepara-ble injury to the party against whom such documentary evidence is received. (15). It is true that the question is different when the trial Court refuses to receive documentary evidence u/O. 13 R. 2 CPC. In my opinion this question is to be examined in the light of clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of R. 27 of Order 41 CPC, which clearly provide that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additio-nal evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But: (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [(aa) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx] (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (16). I am of the view that the aforesaid provisions envisaged under clause (a) of Rule 27 of O. 41 CPC is a sufficient safe guard in those cases where the trial Courts refuse to receive documentary evidence under O.13 R. 2 CPC after framing of issues and such refusal can be re-examined by the learned appellate Courts within the meaning of aforesaid provisions. (17). In my considered opinion a revision against an interlocutory order or against a case decided under amended Sec. 115 CPC is to be entertained on the rarest of rare occasion where the Court is objectively satisfied that if the order is allowed to stand it would occasion either failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made keeping in view non obstnate sub-sec. (2) of the said Sec. To my mind while entertaining a revision under amended Sec. 115 CPC the Courts are also to take into account the principle of merger of any issue decided or order passed in between the passing of the decree or order which is made appealable to the High Court or Courts sub-ordinate thereto. (18). The decision rendered by me in the case of I.B.P. Co. Ltd. (supra), the decisions rendered by two Division Benches in the case of Bharosi Lal (supra) and in the case of Chouth Mal (supra) require reconsideration on the following points: (1) Whether proviso (b) sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 115 CPC is to be interpreted in the light of sub.sec. (2) of Sec. 115 CPC, which clearly provides that the High Court shall not under amended Sec. 115, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto? (2) Whether in a civil suit against which an appeal lies, if trial Court after settlement of issues passed an order in exercise of its positive discretion receiving documentary evidence under O.13 R. 2 CPC after giving an opportunity to other party to adduce documentary evidence in rebuttal yet a revision is maintainable under amended Sec. 115 CPC against such order? (3) Whether principle of merger is extendable in a civil suit against which an appeal lies to the issues decided and orders passed by trial Court in between before passing the decree and such issues decided and orders passed in between passing the decree by the trial Courts merged in the decree and also become integral part of such decree so such issues decided and such orders passed are assailable in appeal ? (4) Whether a revision petition under amended Sec. 115 CPC is maintainable against an order passed by trial Court refusing to receive documentary evidence u/O. 13 R.2 CPC irrespective of the fact that this order can be rectified within the meaning of clause (a) sub-rule (1) of R.27 of O.47 CPC ? (5) Whether the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharosi Lal (supra) has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the terms of its reference made to it holding in paragraph 25 of its decision that if in a case, without existence of sufficient cause, the Court allows an application filed under O.13 R. 2 CPC then the Court has committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction of entertaining the application under O.13 R.2 CPC ? (6) Whether under amended Sec. 115 CPC mere jurisdictional error is not su-fficient to entertain a revision unless any one of the conditions enumerated either under proviso (a) or under proviso (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 115 CPC together with non obstant sub-sec. (2) of the said Section are objectively satisfied ? (7). Whether the expression `` no appeal lies used under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 115 C.P.C. has reasonable nexus with the expression ``against which appeal lies ei-ther to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto used under newly inserted sub-sec. (2) of the said Section and if so its effects on scope of maintainability of revision under amended Sec. 115 CPC ? (19). In order to avoid repetition and to maintain brevity it is observed that the reasons given by me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra) may treated to be additional reasons for making this reference to a larger Bench on the points formulated hereinabove. (20). (19). In order to avoid repetition and to maintain brevity it is observed that the reasons given by me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra) may treated to be additional reasons for making this reference to a larger Bench on the points formulated hereinabove. (20). Let the record of this revision be placed before Honble the Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench to settle the controversy for all time to come and also to resolve the conflict on the aforesaid points in the decision rendered by two Divisi-on Benches of this Court in the case of Bharosi Lal (supra) and Chouth Mal (supra).