Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial court whereby his application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issuance of interrogatories to the defendant, was dismissed. 2. The trial court while dismissing the application of the plaintiff- petitioner after noticing that the possession of the house was delivered to the plaintiff on 16.4.1997, in paras 6 to 8 of its order, had recorded as under :- "6. Present suit has been filed with the allegations that the defendant has paid the rent up to December, 1994 @ 7000/- and has failed to pay the rent w.e.f. January 1995 up to the date of delivery of the possession. Defendant in his written statement has set up rate of rent to be 5,000/- on the basis of licence deed executed between the parties. As per version of the defendant rent has been paid up to December, 1994. As to whether defendant has paid the rent or not, can be decided after the parties lead their evidence and issue in this regard has already been framed. 7. Remaining interrogatories sought to be served upon the defendant relate to the facts pleaded in the plaint as reproduced in the above paragraphs and defendant in the written statement has admitted litigation. As to whether plaintiff was a specified landlord or not is not required to be gone into in the present suit and this question has already been decided in the rent petition under Section 13-A of Rent Act. Entire contents of the plaint are sought to be sent to the defendant by way of interrogatories whereas there is no dispute parties which has been specifically admitted in the written statement itself. 8. The only dispute in the present suit is regarding rate of rent and amount due from the defendant and both the parties have to prove the same by leading their respective evidence and no useful purpose would be served by serving interrogatories." 3. 8. The only dispute in the present suit is regarding rate of rent and amount due from the defendant and both the parties have to prove the same by leading their respective evidence and no useful purpose would be served by serving interrogatories." 3. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.