AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna S.Dixit, J
The petitioners being the plaintiffs in a partition suit in O.S. NO.60/2008 are invoking the jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated
04.11.2017, where4by his application in I.A. No.22 for summoning of the original DCB register for the relevant period 2006-07 has been rejected by
the learned Civil Judge, Sandur; after service of notice the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and resist the writ petition
making submission in justification of the impugned order.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant the relief as under and for the
following reasons:
(a) Admittedly, the suit is one for a decree for partition and seperate possession of properties in question; which document should be produced &
marked in evidence is ordinarily left to the discretion & wisdom of the parties concerned; despite the application, certified copy of the subject file has
not been given; that being the position, the petitioners had no alternate than to apply for summoning of the same; this aspect having not been duly
considered by the learned Judge of the Court below, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of this Court.
(b) In considering the application for summoning of the document; ordinarily, Courts should be bit lenient in suits of the kind; what prejudice would
have been caused to the custodian of the documents or to the other side if file was summoned is not forthcoming from the reasoning in the impugned
order; thus there is an added error apparent on the face of the record.
In the above circumstance, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; the subject application for the petitioners having been
favoured learned Judge of the Court below is requested to summon the original DCB file immediately and facilitate recording of evidnece.
Since the suit is about 13 years old learned Judge of the Court below is requested to try & dispose of the same within an outer limit of nine months and
report compliance to the Additional Registrar General of this Court.
All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs.