JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — This civil revision is directed against the order dated 06.11.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athagarh in T.S. No.7 of 1996 overruling the objection raised by the plaintiffs. 2. Plaintiff-petitioners filed T.S. No.7 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athagarh for declaring that defendant No.2 is not the adopted son of defendant No.1 and that the gift deeds executed by defendant No.1 is null and void with a further prayer to depute a Civil Court Commissioner to carve out the shares of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. After closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence when defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.7, the counsel for the defendants put him a question and in that context objection was raised by the plain¬tiffs for not recording the answer to the said question put to D.W.7. The learned Civil Judge overruled that objection raised by the counsel for the plaintiffs. Hence this revision. 3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners submitted that the impugned order overruling the objection raised by the plaintiff-petitioners is illegal, erroneous and liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the rule of pleading requires that defendant-opposite parties must raise in their pleadings all matters, which would show that the suit would not be maintainable. Since seeking the permission of the natural father is a condition precedent for a valid adoption, the same should be specifically pleaded to be proved. But in the instant case, since pleading is silent with regard to such performance, no question of such fact can be put to a witness. Therefore, the trial Court has committed material irregularity in not consider¬ing the above position. To buttress his submission, he relied on Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. and another v. Janaki Ballav Patnaik and others, 1989 (I) OLR 295. 4. In the instant case, notice is not sufficient against the opposite parties. But after perusal of the impugned order as well as other materials available on record, as this Court felt it proper to decide the maintainability of the civil revision first, the matter was taken up. The impugned order reveals that at the time of examination of defendant No.1 as D.W.7, an objec¬tion was raised by the plaintiff-petitioners regarding non-recording of answer to a question. After considering the same, the learned Civil Judge overruled the objection raised by the plaintiffs. The impugned order reveals that at the time of examination of defendant No.1 as D.W.7, an objec¬tion was raised by the plaintiff-petitioners regarding non-recording of answer to a question. After considering the same, the learned Civil Judge overruled the objection raised by the plaintiffs. In view of the recent amendment of the CPC and the ratio decided in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/s. Swaraj Developers and others, 2003 (I) OLR (SC) 673, this Court without going into the merits of the case holds that the civil revision is not maintainable since by allowing the civil revision the lis is not going to be terminated. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.