Advocates:
['SHANKER LAL SINAWADIYA', '', 'NARENDRA SINWARIA', 'GIRDHARI SINWARIA', 'NARENDRA THANVI', '', 'ANIL JOSHI']

-1-

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5777/2011

Nagendra Vs. Shri Pushtikar Seva Samiti Phalodi & Others

DATE OF ORDER

:

28/05/2014

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Mr. Shanker Lal Sinawadiya, for the petitioner.

Mr. R.K.Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by

Mr. Narendra Thanvi, for the respondents.

1.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

20.7.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phalodi

in Civil Suit No. 243/92, whereby an application preferred

by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC to

summon the record from the Municipal Board, Phalodi,

stands rejected.

2.

The application has been rejected by the Court below

observing that nothing prevented the petitioner from

obtaining the certified copies of the documents sought to be

tendered in evidece.

3.

It is not the case of the petitioner that before making

the application as aforesaid, any attempt was made by the

petitioner to obtain the certified copies of the documents

alleged to be available with the Municipal Board, Phalodi. In

this view of the matter, the rejection of the application by

the trial court cannot be faulted with.

-2-

4.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, subsequent to

the rejection of the application, the petitioner had applied

for the certified copy of the documents, but the same have

not been supplied by the Municipal Board till this date.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is apprised by

the authority concerned of the Municipal Board, Phalodi that

the file is not traceable.

5.

Be that as it may, if the documents are available with

the Municipal Board, Phalodi, there is no reason why the

certified copies thereof shall not be supplied to the

petitioner. In case, the application of the petitioner already

filed for issuing certified copies of the documents is rejected

by the Municipal Board, it will be open for the petitioner to

make an appropriate application before the court concerned

for summoning the available record.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the

observations as above.

(SANGEET LODHA)J.

Rp

27