CRP 460/2010 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Ka rimganj in Title Suit No.213/2007 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to call for the records in original of Case No.257(M)/2007 between the parties invol ving the suit land and disposed of on 20.11.2007. I have heard Mr BC Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms D Choudhury, Advo cate for the petitioner and Mr P Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the Res pondent Nos 1,2 and 3. Other respondents though served, have not arranged for th eir representation in the instant proceeding. The factual background will have to be recited. The respondent Nos 1,2 and 3 instituted Title Suit No.213/2007 in the co urt of the learned Munsiff No.1, Karimganj against the defendant Nos 1 and othe rs praying for a decree inter alia for declaration of their right, title ,intere st in and possession of their share in the land described in the schedule to th e plaint and also for confirmation of their possession thereof. In the plaint, t he Respondent Nos 1,2 and 3 stated that while they along with proforma defenda nts had been maintaining the possession in respect of their shares of the above land, they came to learn that the present petitioner in connivance with others had denied their right and instead claimed the same. It was thereafter that on 2 0.7.2007 on necessary enquiries they could come to learn that the defendant No.3 had instituted Case No.257(M)/2007 under sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner/defendant No.1 in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karimganj. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff No.2 obtained necessary documen ts filed in the said case on 25.7.2007, whereafter the suit was filed citing amo ngst others 20.7.2007 and 25.7.2007 as the dates on which the cause of action th erefor had arisen. The petitioner defendant No.2 filed his written statement stating in s ubstance that the respondent /plaintiffs, principal defendant Nos 2 to 11 and t he proforma defendant Nos 14 to 18 have no right, title, interest in and posses sion over the suit land and in the suit house. This was on 3.12.2007. Meanwhile, case No.257(M)/2007 was disposed of on 20.11.2007, the same having been dropp ed. Before disposal thereof, however, the parties involved therein had adduced e vidence in support of their respective pleadings. While the suit was pending as above, for the cross examination of the p laintiffs’ witnesses, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 3 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short, hereafter referred to as t he ’Code’) seeking production of the entire records of the case No.257(M)/200 7 before being required to cross examine the witnesses of the respondents plaint iffs. A written objection was filed on behalf of the respondents plaintiffs, whe reafter, the impugned order was passed. Mr Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner with reference to Orde r 13 Rule 10 of the Code has argued that having regard to the background of th e suit and the relevance of the proceeding of case No.257(M)/2007, the records a s prayed for was of formidable significance and the impugned order having been passed against the letter and spirit of that provision of the Code, interference therewith is called for in the interest of justice. To reinforce his plea, Mr Das has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Lakshmi and Another vs. Chinnammal Alias Rayyammal and others (2009) 13 SCC 25. Per contra, Mr Bhowmik has argued with reference to Rule 106 of the Civ il Court Rules and Orders that as the certified copies of the relevant documen ts of case No.257(M)/07 had been filed, the records thereof was rightly not ca lled for and thus the impugned order is unassailable in law and on facts. Accor ding to him, it being open for the parties to furnish the certified copies of t he other documents considered to be relevant, having regard to the mandate of Ru le 106, it is even otherwise inessential to call for the records as sought b y the petitioner/defendant No.1. According to him, therefore, the impugned orde r is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference at this end. The pleadings on record and the submissions advanced have been duly not iced. A bare perusal of the order impugned discloses that the prayer of the pet itioner/defendant No.1 has been rejected on the following grounds - (1) the defendant side would have chance to adduce evidence for what they will give evidence from the case records ; (2) the case has been pending since last 2007 and PW 1 has not yet been cros s examined by the defendant. (3) if at this stage, records are called for, the proceeding would get delay ed. A bare perusal of Rule 106 makes it abundantly clear that the enjoinment thereof is subject to any provision of law to the contrary. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 106 takes proper notice of the prescription of Order 13 Rule 10(1) of the Code u nderlining the prerequisites for the exercise of power thereunder. A bare readi ng of sub-rule(1) and (2) of Rule 106 demonstrate that the power for calling for the records as mentioned therein and perceived by the respondent Nos 1,2 and 3 is not in absolute terms has to be subject to the mandate of Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code. The Apex Court in Lakshmi and Anohther(Supra) while dwelling with the scope and ambit of Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code had observed that if bringing on record of a document is essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; the court’s duty being to find out the truth. T heir Lordships underlined that the procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged. Having regard to the documents of the suit and more particularly the ca use of action thereof as acknowledged and recorded by the respondents plaintiffs , I am of the opinion that the grounds cited in the impugned order are not ade quate enough to reject the prayer made for calling for the records of case No .257(M)/2007. The relevance and bearing of the proceeding of case No.257(M).2 007 is more than apparent on the face of the record more particularly, as disc ernible from the averments made in the plaint itself. The petitioner /defendant No.1 having felt the necessity of the said records to supplement his defence, the same cannot be undermined on the basis of the notion of the respondents/ pl aintiffs to the contrary unless there are overwhelming materials in support the reof. This is not the position in the instant case. As the law of procedure is the hand maid of justice, the same cannot be conceded primacy, the end objectiv e of a court proceeding being justice. The above view finds support from the decision of the Apex court in Lakshmi and another(Supra). In the above view of the matter, I find sufficient force in the challeng e to the impugned order. The order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the learned Munsif f No.1, Karimganj in Title Suit No.213/2007 is therefore interfered with. The parties would appear before the learned trial court on 13.6.2011. On that da y, the learned court below would pass appropriate orders to call for the records of case No.257(M)/2007 within a period of 10 days therefrom. It would thereafte r proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.