AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Chitambaresh, J.—The petitioners are additional defendants 9 to 13 who are also the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant in the suit for fixation of boundary. The court below has by the order impugned disallowed their application to call for the records in another suit (O.S. No. 840/1992) to which the plaintiff in O.S. No. 204/2007 is not a party. The court below was perfectly justified in holding that no case has been made out for summoning those documents in the light of Order XIII Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. I however make it clear that the petitioners can very well obtain certified copies of the pleadings, documents and judgment in O.S. No. 840/1992 and produce it in O.S. No. 204/2007.
A report of the Advocate Commissioner is only evidence in the suit in which it is filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore there is no point in examining the Advocate Commissioner in O.S. No. 840/1992 unless the certified copy of his report and plan filed therein is also marked in O.S. No. 204/2007 through him.
I also agree with the court below that the deposition of a witness in O.S. No. 840/1992 cannot be relied on in O.S. No. 204/2007 since the plaintiff herein is not a party therein. The evidentiary value of the pleadings, documents and judgment in O.S. No. 840/1992 will of course be considered in a proper perspective at the time of trial in O.S. No. 204/2007. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity to examine the Advocate Commissioner or Talk Surveyor who have prepared the report in O.S. No. 840/1992 in case the certified copies of the same are produced in the suit.
The Original Petition is disposed of.