1. No authority has been quoted to me to show that Order 14, Rule 1, Clause 5, does not apply to this case, or that the first date of hearing had passed when the order sought to be revised was made. The words 'first hearing of the suit' in Order 13, Rule 1 are obviously different from the words 'the first hearing of the suit' under Order 14, Rule 1, Clause 5 because parties have not to produce their documents till issues are framed. It is not necessary here to discuss to what period in the course of the suit first hearing' in Order 14, Rule 1, Clause 5 would extend, but it would clearly extend at least up to the period of 'first hearing of the suit referred to in Order 13(1). There is no reason for cutting down the most useful direction (Order 14, Rule 1 Clause 5) nor can I see any logic in saying that the powers conferred by it only extend to the first discussion of issues and not to any subsequent ones which intervene between 'the first hearing of the suit' as meant by Order 14, Rule 1, Clause 5 and the first hearing as meant by Order 13(1). In this case the latter date was fixed only for 3rd November 1932, while the order in question was passed on 25th October 1932. Under Order 14, Rule 5(1) the Court is clearly entitled to question the parties who appear on the real matters in issue between them arising on the plaint and written statements filed, and the order was a perfectly correct one on the statement of defendant 2's pleader. This civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.