The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on the discretion of the court in sending for papers from its own record or from other courts under Order 13, Rule 10, and the requirement for the applicant to show on affidavit how the record is material to the suit.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 24-11-2015 passed by Vth Additional District Judge Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 67A/14 whereby, three applications filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order 13, Rule 10 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code, Order 7, Rule 14(3) read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code and one under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code have been rejected.

2. It is petitioner's contention that the first application under Order 7, Rule 14(3), Civil Procedure Code was filed for taking certain documents on record. Since, those documents were not legible, therefore, another application under Order 13, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code was filed to summon records of such cases from the Revenue Authorities, certified copies of which were filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14(3), Civil Procedure Code. It is also submitted that plaintiff had filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code to implead the beneficiary of the will of Thakurdas s/o Manpal Choudhary namely Piyush Thapak s/o Kailash Narayan as a party.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these three applications have been dismissed by the trial Court in a very casual manner without appreciating the facts in the correct perspective and also without taking cognizance of the fact that petitioner/plaintiff is the share holder of defendant No. 1/Gwalior Dairy Ltd. and once the documents were not readable, then application under Order 13, Rule 10 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code was filed to call the original record and therefore these applications should have been allowed. It is also submitted that since defendant No. 3 Thakur Das was one of the purchasers of the disputed land and he died during the pendency of the proceedings, therefore, it was necessary to bring his legal heir Piyush Thapak on record as Piyush Thapak had inherited estate of said Thakur Das.

4. As far as the application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code is concerned, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff had earlier filed an application which was dismissed by the Court on the ground that no Will of Thakurdas was produced on record. The trial Court has held that this prayer has been made to implead Piyush Thapak as a party on the basis of certain surveys which have been filed on record, but it is settled principle of law that such survey entries do not create any right and therefore on the basis of survey entries whereby name of Piyush Thapak was mutated in relation to certain properties, he cannot be directed to be impleaded as a party and therefore application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that since earlier application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code for impleading said Piyush Thapak was rejected, therefore, there was no justification for moving another application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 and such second application was hit by provisions of section 11 of Civil Procedure Code inasmuch as the principle of res judicata will be applicable between the two proceedings in the same suit.

6. As far as this objection of learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, this objection was not taken before the trial Court and trial Court has merely rejected this application on two counts namely Will was not produced on record and secondly the survey entries which reflect mutation of name of Piyush Thapak cannot be treated to have created any title in favour of such Piyush Thapak.

7. As far as these two aspects are concerned, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code the Court is only required to see that name of any person who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or who