B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision under section 115 C. P. C. against the order, dated 30/1/2001 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Misc. Case No. 155 of 1988. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the revision are as follows: Suit No. 441 of 1982 was filed by respondent no. 1 through Mutawalli Narendra kumar alias Narendra Kumar Trivedi alias Shiv om against 28 persons. The relief sought in the suit is for declaration regarding his right of the Mutawalli of the Trust property. The relief of injunction was also sought. Some of the defendants filed written statements denying that sri Narendra Kumar Trivedi is the Mutwalli. During the pendency of the Suit a Misc. Case no. 155 of 1988 under Section 276 of the indian Succession Act was also filed by Sri narendra Kumar Trivedi in the court of the district Judge, Moradabad. It was alleged that sri Narendra Kumar Trivedi was adopted by late Pt. Hari Kishan, and he requested for issue probate in his favour for the properties mentioned in the petition on the basis of the will dated 2/6/1972 of Pt. Hari Kishan. Both these probate application and the Suit were for the same properties, therefore, both the suits were consolidated and Misc. Case No. 155 of 1988 was made the leading case. Against that order of consolidation of the suits, writ petition No. 6147 of 1991 was filed before this Court, which was decided on 31/7/1998. The order of the consolidation of the suits was upheld but the order was modified only to the extent that. suit No. 441 of 1982 shall remain the leading case. After the decisiion of the writ petition the matter was taken up by the Additional District Judge, moradabad on 29/10/1999. He ordered that several dates have been fixed for evidence of the defendants, but they are not producing any evidence, therefore, the opportunity of the defendants, the present revisionists, to produce the evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments on 5/11/1999. The aforesaid order is annexure 7 to the petition. After this order, the revisionists, who were defendants in the suit, moved an application for permission to produce evidence on 25/11/2000 alleging that the dates were not informed by the counsel and, therefore, the evidence could not be produced. The aforesaid order is annexure 7 to the petition. After this order, the revisionists, who were defendants in the suit, moved an application for permission to produce evidence on 25/11/2000 alleging that the dates were not informed by the counsel and, therefore, the evidence could not be produced. It was further pleaded that the defendants will suffer irrepairable loss if they are not permitted to produce the evidence. The said application has-been rejected by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, moradabad by the impugned order, dated 30/1/2001. Against that order, the present revision has been filed. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advocate for the revisionists and Sri H. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, it has been argued that the petitioners will suffer irrepairable loss if they are not permitted to produce the evidence. It is further contended that refusal to provide opportunity to produce evidence will cause prejudice to them and will result in gross injustice and an opportunity be given to them to produce evidence. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents have taken me through the orders, dated 25. 10,2000 and the impugned order, dated 30. 1. 2000 and the order of the Honble Mr. Justice Aloke Chakraborty in writ petition no. 6147 of 1991. It is contended that the revisionists had knowledge regarding the order, dated 31. 7. 1998 passed in the writ petition. That the order of the learned Additional district Judge, Moradabad show that the counsel for the revisionists was informed of the dates. That the information to the counsel was sufficient and there was no necessity of sending separate information to the parties. ( 5 ) IT has been further argued that more than sufficient time has already been granted to the revisionists to produce the evidence. That the cases are very old. That, therefore, the revision is without merit and there is no ground to interfere in the order of the trial court. ( 6 ) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone through the record and various orders. The suit as well as Misc. Case are very old. The suit was filed in the year 1982 and the Misc. Case in the year 1988. ( 6 ) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone through the record and various orders. The suit as well as Misc. Case are very old. The suit was filed in the year 1982 and the Misc. Case in the year 1988. It has also been argued that counsel for the revisionists were given information regarding the dates which was sufficient and no notice was required to be sent to the revisionists. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, it has been argued by learned counsel for revisionists that the suit is still pending and has not yet been decided. Therefore, no perjudice will be caused to the opposite parties, if opportunity to produce evidence is provided to the revisionists. Unless the opportunity of evidence is provided to the revisionists Justice cannot be done to them. Interest of justice require that the revisionists be provided opportunity to produce evidence. The rejection of the request to provide opportunity will entale in gross injustice, which should be avoided on technical grounds. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the request of the revisionists appear to be proper to me. The other reason forcing me to take this view is that the dispute is regarding the trust property belonging to the temple. It Is neither a personal property of any of the revisionists nor of the opposite parties. Sri Narendra Kumar Trlvedi has claimed himself to be Mutawalll of the temple and not the owner. The revisionists claim the right of the management of the same. If proper. evidence Is not adduced and case Is not decided on merits, the trust property Is likely to be misappropriated. No doubt it do appear that there are latches on the part of the revisionists in producing the evidence. However, the reason for the same Is apparent and It Is that per sendsonal interest of none of the parties is involved in the matter and this litigation is secondary for them. It appears that the revisionists have not taken this litigation seriously as their personal property is not at stake. In such a case where property is of the temple the interest of justice require that opportunity to produce evidence should be allowed. ( 9 ) IN the light of the above discussion, 1 think it proper to allow the revision. It appears that the revisionists have not taken this litigation seriously as their personal property is not at stake. In such a case where property is of the temple the interest of justice require that opportunity to produce evidence should be allowed. ( 9 ) IN the light of the above discussion, 1 think it proper to allow the revision. ( 10 ) THE revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders of the learned VIII additional District Judge, Moradabad dated 29/10/2000 and 30/1/2001 are quashed. The learned Additional District Judge before whom the case is pending will provide proper opportunity to defendants-revisionists to produce the evidence and then shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Revision allowed. .