Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangi Lal vs Nandlal Lohariya & Ors on 24 April, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3507 / 2018
Mangi Lal S/o Gangaram Ji, Aged About 88 Years, By Gayari, R/o
Basad, Tehsil Pratapgarh, Dist. Pratapgarh (RAJ).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Nandlal Lohariya S/o Devram, B/c Gayari, R/o Basad, (presently
At Pratapgarh) Tehsil Pratapgarh Dist. Pratapgarh (RAJ).
2. Bulak Bai Mewar W/o Late Maganlal, B/c Aanjana, R/o Basad,
Tehsil Pratapgarh, Dist. Pratapgarh (RAJ)
3. The Sub Registrar, Collector Parisar, Pratapgarh (RAJ)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Devasi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L. Jain
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 24/04/2018
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:
"a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned order dated 07.02.2018 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Family Court, Pratapgarh may kindly be quashed and set aside and application under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC may kindly be rejected.
b) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction by which this Hon'ble Court considers just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
c) Costs of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner."
2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, by which he made prayer for specific performance of (2 of 3) [CW-3507/2018] contract, for which he executed sale agreement. The respondent- plaintiff filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC, by which he requested to summon the record of criminal original case No.195/2012 titled as Nandlal Lohariya Vs. Mangi Lal Gayari and he further stated that the document regarding the sale agreement, receipt are attached with the record of criminal case, therefore, the same is required. The said application was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 07.02.2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly opposed the allowing of application of respondents on the ground that the same is likely to cause an impediment in the ongoing criminal trial.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure prescribed under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC has not been adhered to and therefore, it is a fit case where the application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC ought to have been dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has justified the impugned order.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC, the satisfaction of the learned court below is required regarding the record in question and if such satisfaction is arrived at by the learned court below then normally, the same should not be interfered with by the supervisory court. The impugned order carries a categorical observation that the documents in question were not in control of the plaintiff and (3 of 3) [CW-3507/2018] therefore, since the concerned court required the said document for appropriate adjudication of the suit, therefore, the impugned order seems to be well justified.
7. In the above backdrop, no interference is call for in the present writ petition and the same accordingly dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. /zeeshan/