Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VISHWANATH AND ANOTHER versus KALAWATI AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vishwanath And Another v. Kalawati And Another - WRIT - C No. - 52486 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16996 (26 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioners are the plaintiffs of Original Suit No. 2099 of 2003 which has been filed for cancellation of the sale-deeds dated 13.6.2003 and 30.6.2003 executed in favour of defendant Ist set who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the present petition. The petitioners moved an application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC for summoning the record of the case pending before the Additional Tehsildar, Deoria. The Trial Court allowed the application but the Revision filed by the defendants was allowed. The Revisional Court observed that the conditions specified in Order 13 Rule 10 (2) CPC were not satisfied as the plaintiffs could not specify that they could not obtain duly authenticated copy of the documents for which purpose the records of the case had been called for. Order 13 Rule 10(1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure are quoted below:-

"(1) The Court may of its own motion, and may in its discretion upon the application of any of the parties to a suit, send for, either from its own records or from any other Court, the record of any other suit or proceeding, and inspect the same.

(2) Every application made under this rule shall (unless the Court otherwise directs) be supported by an affidavit showing how the record is material to the suit in which the application is made, and that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires, or that the production of the original is necessary for the purposes of justice."

Thus two things are required to be established before the records can be summoned. The applicant has first to show how the record is material to the suit in which the application has been made and secondly that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expenses obtain a duly authtenticated copy of the record.

The applicant-petitioners could not establish that these two conditions were satisfied and so the order passed by the Revisional Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference.

Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that a direction be issued to the Trial Court to decide the Original Suit expeditiously.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and having perused the record, I am satisfied that such a direction needs to be issued.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction that Original Suit No. 2099 of 2003 may be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Dt/- 26.10.2007

Sharma/52486


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.