JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Srimadhopur in Civil Original Suit No. 109/2000, whereby the learned Court has refused to take the documents (photographs) on record. 2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on the grounds of personal necessity, default, material alteration etc. on 28.4.1997. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement on 11.5.1999. After determination of the revisional rent on 16.11.2001, the Issues were framed on 7.2.2001 and the parties were called upon to lead their evidence. During the examination-in-chief of Prahlad (PW-1) on 6.9.2001, he stated that he had no house for his residence whereupon the learned counsel for the defendants submitted 7 photographs alongwith negatives of the house in which plaintiffs are residing but the Court below refused to take those photographs on record vide the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has raised a preliminary objection that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of the amended proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that if the documents are not taken on record, serious prejudice would be caused to their case. But, he could not show as to how if the impugned order had been passed in his favour, it would have disposed of the suit or the proceedings finally. 5. Indeed in view of the law laid down in Phool Singh v. Mavla alias Bhavaliya & Ors., AIR 2002 Madhya Pradesh 246 , K.R. Subbaraju v. Vasavi Trading Co. & Ors., AIR 2002 Karnataka 407 and in Hari Prasad v. Ram Dayal & Anr., decided on 13.2.2003 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1474/2002 , this Court is highly precluded from varying or reversing the impugned order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction because the impugned order if it had b n in favour of the petitioners, it would not have finally disposed of the suit or the proceedings. Thus, there is ample force and merits in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and this revision p ion deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 6. In the result, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******