ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 08.05.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed in Civil Suit No.171-A/2017 by which the First Civil Judge Class-2, Khandwa (M.P.) has rejected two applications one under Order

XIII Rule 10 of CPC and the second under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC.

2. relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction in respect of the suit lands detailed in the plaint. It has been pleaded that the alteration in revenue records in favour of plaintiff and in favour of respondents is fraudulent and the same has also been impugned in the suit. The defendants/respondents filed their written statement disputing declaration of the plaintiff/petitioner. During trial, the plaintiff/petitioner filed certified copies of proceedings of Revenue Case No.01/A-68/2017-18 which was granted to him. However, certified copies of the statements of witnesses were not granted to the plaintiff/petitioner for the reason that the same is not the public documents, therefore, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC seeking summoning of records and another application under Oder XVI Rule 1 of CPC for summoning of concerned Revenue Officer to prove the same. The respondents/defendants did not choose to file the reply to the aforesaid applications and only opposed the prayer. The trial Court, by way of the impugned order dated 08.05.2019, rejected both the applications. Hence, this petition.

3. illegal, erroneous, contrary to law and suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. The order runs contrary to the provisions and objects of Oder XIII Rule 10 of CPC and Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC. The finding recorded by the trial Court that the provisions of sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order XIII has not been complied is absolutely perverse. On bare perusal of the applications supported by the affidavits reveals that sufficient explanation has been provided by the petitioner. The findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to Revenue Officer is not required to be called in witness box for proving the relevant revenue records is also perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Lakshmi and another Vs. Chinnammal @ 2009 13 SCC 25

held that once the petitioner has already filed the certified copies which were available, however, some copies were not available for the reason that they were public documents; hence, the application ought to have been allowed. The Apex Court has further held that if bringing on record a document is essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused, the Court's duty being to find out the truth. The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged. In view of the aforesaid, the application under Order 13 Rule

10 of CPC seeking summoning of records may be allowed.

4. application under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC is concerned, the summoning of concerned officer to prove that the documents is necessary in view of the fact that to prove the documents, Patwari Subhash Gadke needs to be called and without issuing summons the government employee will not remain present before the Court. The learned trial Court without considering the law in proper perspective and without appreciating the evidence of the case dismissed the application under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC on the ground that the application has been filed only with the purpose to delay the trial. On 19.06.2019 while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court stayed further proceedings pending before the trial Court. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has not assigned any cogent reason to reject the application under Order XVI

Rule 1 of CPC.

5. the material available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned so far as it relates to Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC cannot be sustained; as such, the same deserves to be quashed and the ap