ORDER

1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner / plaintiff has challenged the order dated 13/2/2024 passed by the trial Court whereby his application for calling the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Umarban Nayapura, Tehsil Manawar, District Dhar has been rejected.

2 . The plaintiff has instituted an action against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over the suit property. He has claimed ownership upon the same on the basis of a patta dated 2/8/2023 issued to him by Gram Panchayat. The defendants have contested the claim by filing their written statement in which the said patta has been stated to be forged and fabricated. After framing of issues by the trial Court the plaintiff led his evidence and his statement was recorded in which he exhibited certain documents which are a part of the record of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter he filed the application under consideration for calling the Secretary of Gram Panchayat along with the record of the case wherein the patta was issued in his favour. The application was contested by the defendants and has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order by observing that some of the documents of the Gram Panchayat have already been exhibited hence there does not appear to be any necessity for calling the Secretary of Gram Panchayat along with the record.

3. The plaintiff in his examination before the trial Court has exhibited certain documents which are a part of the record of the Gram Panchayat. They are not the original documents and for the purpose of proving the same, the record from the Gram Panchayat is necessary to be requisitioned. Only for the reason that the documents have been marked as exhibits, it cannot be held that they stand proved. It is well settled that mere marking of the document as an exhibit is not proof of the same and in case it is not the original it has to be proved by summoning the originals. The documents have been contended by the defendants to be forged and fabricated hence for proving the same the originals are required to be summoned.

4. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, the trial Court has committed an error of law in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 13/2/2024 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and the application dated 18/10/2023 preferred by the plaintiff stands allowed.

The trial Court is directed to summon the witness as sought to be summoned by the plaintiff along with the relevant record. However, it is made clear that the witness shall be examined and the record shall be taken aid of only to the extent of proving the documents which have been exhibited by the plaintiff before the trial Court.

5. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed off. (PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-