1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Lalit Mishra V/s. Ramdev & Ors. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6192/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order :: May 03, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj for the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chirawa, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner for summoning the record of the Nagar Palika and SDO, Chirawa, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff- petitioner filed a civil suit for injunction with the averments that his grand-father purchased the properties in dispute. Therefore, he has having share in the joint family property. In the said suit, the petitioner prayed that without getting partition of the property, the defendants be restrained from selling the property. The defendants filed written statement and stated that the property in dispute is self-acquired and therefore, the 2 petitioner does not have any right, title and interest in the property. The petitioner filed an application on 03.08.2007 for calling the record of Nagar Paliki Pilani and SDO, Chirawa. The learned Court below after hearing both the parties, vide order its order dated 15.02.2010, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff with the cost of Rs.500/- Hence, this writ petition before this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, although the photo-state copies of the documents were submitted before the learned trial Court, yet the original documents were still needed as the documents show the admission made by the defendant, Ramdev. Since the admisson was made by the defendant in his own handwriting, it is essential to prove the handwriting. Thus, the application for summoning the original documents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. In the application filed by the petitioner, nowhere does he state that the original copies of documents are required in order to prove the admission which was made by the defendant in his handwriting. This contention was, thus, never raised before the trial Court. Moreover, even the defendant has 3 not denied the fact that he has made these admissions. Therefore, the question of proving the handwriting of the defendant does not even arise in the present case. Furthermore, the learned Judge is certainly justified in observing that nothing prevents the petitioner from seeking certified copies of the documents and from producing the same before the Court. Thus, the logic given by the learned Judge is both legal and valid. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-