IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA ON THE 6^th OF NOVEMBER, 2024 MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 6140 of 2024 AWDHALAL NAI Versus LAXMI NARAYAN DUBEY AND OTHERS ............................................................................................................................................

Appearance:

Shri Ramnath Dwivedi – Advocate for the petitioner.

............................................................................................................................................

O R D E R

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

a. That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, order or direction to call for the record in connection with RCS No.70/2022 pending before Civil Judge-I Churahat District Sidhi (M.P.).

b. That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25/09/2024 (P/5) passed in RCS-A No.70/2022 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Class-

I, Churahat, District- Sidhi (M.P.)

c. That, this Ho,nble Court pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 25/09/2024 Annexure-P/5. And allowed the Application filed before trial court.

d. That, any other relief this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC for calling record from the Court as petitioner is of the view that certified copy may not be granted to him.

3. The Trial Court has rejected the application by the impugned order by holding that petitioner has not pointed out any effort made by him for obtaining the certified copies of the concerning documents.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has supplied a copy of circular dated 08/09-04-2019 issued by Additional Collector, District Sidhi, which reads as under:-

“dk;kZy; dysDVj ftyk& lh/kh …e-iz-‰

lh/kh] fnukad 8@9-4-19 vkns”k dzekda @32@jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj@2019 ftyk vfHkys[kkxkj es a lfa pr vfr egRoi.w kZ iqjku s jktLo vfHkys[k tks udy rS;kj djkus l s QV jgs gSa] cgqr ls xkao ds [kljs o vU; fjdkMZ jkcwn gks x;s gS ftudh udy nsuk lHa ko ugha gS ,ls s fuEufyf[kr jktLo vfHkys[kksa dks lqjf{kr j[kus ds mn~ns”; l s uhps vafdr vfHky[s kks a dh udys a rS;kj djku s ij iw.kZr% izfrca/k yxk;k tkrk gS%&

1- o’kZ 1954&1955 dk [kljk 2- o’kZ 1956&1961 dk [kljk 3- o’kZ 1958&1959 dh [krkSuh

4- o’kZ 1921&1922 dk cLa nkscLrh uD”kk

5- o’kZ 1921&1922 dh cLa nkscLrh [krkSuh@eq”kfn~ndk mDr vfHkys[kks a dh udy rS;kj fd;k tkuk iw.kZr%

izfrcaf/kr fd;k tkrk gS] bu vfHkys[kks a dh U;k;ky; dks vko”;drk gksus ij lacfa /kr dks U;k;ky; dh ekax ij ;g vfHky[s k U;k;ky; es a voyksdu gsrq is”k fd;s tk ldrs gSaA ;g vkns”k rRdky izHkko”khy gksxk dysDVj }kjk vuqeksfnr vij dysDVj ftyk lh/kh …e0iz‰

i`’Vkadu dzekad@33@jktLo vfHky[s kkxkj@2019 lh/kh]

fnukad 8@9-4-19 izfrfyfi%&

1- mi[k.M vf/kdkjh xksincukl@flgkoy@

cgjh@pqjgV@jkeiqj uSfdu@e>kSyh@dqleh]

ftyk lh/kh dks lwpukFkZA

2- leLr rglhynkj ftyk lh/kh pqjgV

3- v/;{k vf/koDrk l?a k ftyk lh/kh

4- eq[; izfrfyfidkj ftyk dk;kZy; lh/kh dks lpw ukFkZ ,oa ikyukFkZA vij dysDVj ftyk lh/kh …e0iz‰”

5. From plain reading of this circular, it appears that the Additional Collector has put an absolute bar on issuance of certified copy of khasra of year 1954-1955, khasra of year 1956-1961, khatouni of year 1958- 1959, bandobasti naksha of year 1921-1922 and bandobasti khatouni/ mushaddika of year 1921-1922. However, without adjudicating the correctness of this circular, it is observed that this circular does not apply to the present case. Petitioner wants to summon the record of different Civil Suits in which the documents were filed. Furthermore, in circular dated 08/09-04-2019, it is mentioned that in case if the Court directs for production of documents, then the same can be produced before the Court. Petitioner has not sought production of o