Refusal to call for original records without certified copies, when the defendant had not issued the certified copies, was erroneous and prejudiced the petitioner's ability to prove the case.

By the Court.-In this writ petition petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 2.7.2005, whereby the learned Court below has refused to call for the original records from the office of the Circle Officer, Simdega unless and until the certified copy of those records are filed.

2. It has been stated that the xerox copy of the order was filed and prayer was made to call for the records on the ground that the certified copy of the order has not been issued by the Circle Officer.

3. It has been further stated that the suit itself has been filed against the Circle Officer and he was the defendant in the suit and that in his presence the petitioner had made statement that the application was made for obtaining the certified copy but the same has not been given to the petitioner. In that circumstance the petitioner annexed the xerox copy of the documents and made prayer to call for the regards from the office of Circle Officer before the examination of the Halka Karmachari.

4. It has been stated that the suit has been filed against the Circle Officer and others when final order was not passed in the rent fixation case, which was pending since long before the Circle Officer. Learned Court below has refused the petitioner's prayer for calling the original records observing that the same cannot be called for unless and until the certified copy of the documents are filed.

5. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner had applied for the certified copy of the documents before the Circle Officer against whom the suit was instituted, but even after lapse of a long time certified copy was not issued by the Circle Officer. The petitioner thus produced the xerox copy and prayed for calling for the original record from the office of the Circle Officer before examination of the Halka Karmachari. He further submitted that there is no such requirement of law that the Court can send for the record only when the certified copy of the documents is filed. He further submitted that the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and shall be highly prejudiced if those original documents are not called for and proved in support of the plaintiffs case. Learned Court below has casually refused to send for the record before filing the certified copy of the documents without considering the said predicament of the petitioner.

6. Learned J.C. to S.C. (Land Ceiling) appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the petitioner's prayer and submitted that the learned Court below has rejected the petitioner's application after proper application of mind and due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Interference of this Court with the said order is not warranted.

7. I have heard learned' counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record.

8. The suit was filed by the petitioner against the Circle Officer with the grievance that his application for fixation of rent regarding the suit land is pending since long. In order to prove his case the petitioner intended to produce the certified copies of the documents and record of the Circle Officer. He applied for the certified copies of those documents but even after a long time certified copies were not issued by the Circle Officer. Petitioner thereafter produced xerox copies of the documents and prayed for calling for the original documents for proving the same in support of his case but the same has been refused by the learned Court below on the ground that the prayer cannot be allowed unless and until the certified copy of these documents are filed in the Court. Learned Court below failed to appreciate that the Circle Officer himself is a party and has not issued the certified copy of the documents applied for by him. In that circumstance it would not be possible for the petitioner to file certified copies of the documents for that purpose and to prove his case. The petitioner can prove those doc