Order 13 Rule 10 CPC cannot be used to call for documents from other sources.

ORDER

1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 09.01.2023, passed in the case of 138/2019 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain whereby, the petitioner's application filed under Order 13 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to call for certain documents from the applicant has been rejected.

2] In brief, the facts of the case are that a case for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been filed by the Signature Not Verified respondent/applicant in the Family Court at Ujjain on the ground of cruelty. In the aforesaid proceedings, the application under Order 13 of Rule 10 of the CPC has been filed for production of certain documents to the petitioner, including the bank account statements of the applicant, as also the documents regarding purchase of the bullet motorcycle. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned Judge of the lower court on the ground that it is for the applicant to prove his case, and thus, the burden of proof lies on the applicant only, and thus, the aforesaid documents are not required.

3] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the application ought to have been allowed as it has been specifically pleaded by the applicant in his application that he has transferred certain amount from the years 2016 to 2018, and thus, if he produces the aforesaid bank account statements it may demonstrate that the amount was actually transferred or not. It is further submitted that the amount which the applicant has transferred in the account of the petitioner's mother was subsequently taken by him when to purchase a bullet motorcycle. Thus, it is submitted that the application ought to have been allowed.

4] Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the provisions of Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC cannot be applied, as the same is confined to the court's records only, and thus, the application itself was not maintainable. It is also submitted that otherwise also if any amount has been transferred from the applicant's account to the account of the petitioner's mother in that case, she can also produce those statements.

5] Heard the counsel for the parties also perused the record.

Signature Not Verified

6] From the record, it is found that so far as the applicability of Order

13 Rule 10 of the CPC is concerned, the application filed by the petitioner itself was misconceived as Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC provides for the court's power to send for the papers from its own records or from other courts, and no other power is provided under the aforesaid rule. In such circumstances, the application itself was not maintainable, and even considering the grievance of the petitioner, it is found that in the application itself, she has stated that she has the bank account statements reflecting the entries of the amount which the applicant has credited in the account of her mother.

7] In view of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the learned Judge of the lower Court does not need any interference as the same is neither illegal nor there is any error committed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. Accordingly, the present being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)

JUDGE moni Signature Not Verified