JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision under section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 30.9.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 9, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 70/99 whereby the application under Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) r/w Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs who are non-petitioners herein filed a suit for possession of the disputed property in the Court below which was contested by and on behalf of defendants who are petitioners herein denying the averments made in the plaint. The trial Court after framing the issues recorded the evidence of the parties and when after hearing the final arguments, second time the case was fixed for judgment, the petitioners filed the aforesaid application along with 77 documents with the prayer to take them on record which after hearing the parties was disallowed vide the order impugned which is now under challenge in this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the impugned order. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents are public documents which are admissible in evidence without formal proof. Even if these documents are not ordered to be taken on record and not exhibited, this may be kept on the file so that the petitioners may make proper application before the appellate Court for taking them on record and for looking into these documents. According to him the order impugned tanta-mounts to 'a case decided' and, therefore, this revision petition is maintainable. In this regard he has relied upon the case of Chunni Lal v. Shanta Devi & Anr., reported in 2001 (1) WLC (Raj.) 487 . 5. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed as back as on 6.9.1980 wherein the plaintiffs and defendants examined 17 and 6 witnesses respectively and got exhibited several document. After conclusion of the evidence, trial Court heard the final arguments on 16.12.1997. The case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment, but the same could not be pronounced. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer stood transferred. The case was again fixed for final arguments on 3.12.2001 and the arguments were also heard by the present incumbent and the case was fixed for delivery of judgment. It was then the present application was filed by the petitioners-defendants. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer stood transferred. The case was again fixed for final arguments on 3.12.2001 and the arguments were also heard by the present incumbent and the case was fixed for delivery of judgment. It was then the present application was filed by the petitioners-defendants. The learned Court below has dismissed the same on the ground that it has been filed at a very belated stage and this Court has passed direction to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 6. It is not in dispute that the order impugned tantamounts to the case decided as has been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chunni Lal v. Shanta Devi & Anr. (supra) but the said case pertains to the interpretation of Section 115 CPC as it existed before its amendment by CPC amendment Act 1999 (Act No. 46 of 1999) which has come into force w.e.f 1.7.2002 and, therefore, this authority is of little avail to the petitioner. This apart in the aforesaid authority the application for taking on record the documents was rejected on the similar ground of being filed belatedly. Thus, on the basis of the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application filed by and on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 7. This apart in view of amended Section 115 CPC this Court is precluded from varying or reversing any order except in cases where such an order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. In the instant case it cannot be said that the order impugned if it had been passed in favour of the petitioners it would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. Thus, keeping in view the pronouncement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Phool Singh v. Mavla @ Bhavaliya & Ors., reported in AIR 2002 MP 246 , K.R. Subbaraju v. M/s. Vasavi Trading Co. & Ors., reported in AIR 2002 Karnataka 407 , this Court in the case of Hari Prasad v. Ram Dayal & Anr., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1474/2002 decided on 13.2.2003 and the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi & Ors. & Ors., reported in AIR 2002 Karnataka 407 , this Court in the case of Hari Prasad v. Ram Dayal & Anr., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1474/2002 decided on 13.2.2003 and the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi & Ors. v. Dharam Dev & Ors., reported in AIR 2002 SC 559 , this Court canot interfere with the impugned order. 8. In this view of the matter, therefore, this revision petition is hereby dismissed summarily.Revision petition dismissed. *******