1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Abdul Rasheed & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10693/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :: August 6, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Gaurav Gupta for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC for taking the trace map on record; the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against the defendants-respondents for permanent injunction stating therein that there is a land situated on Jaipur-Delhi bye-pass which belongs to them and the respondents are trying to interfere in 2 the peaceful possession of and usage of the petitioners. The defendants-respondents filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and also stated that the land belongs to the Forest Department. The petitioners applied for the trace map of disputed property in the Settlement Department and after receiving the same, they filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC for taking the trace map and photogrpahs of the disputed property on record. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. Hence, this petition before this Court. The petitioner contends that the controversy involved is whether the land is a forest land or an agricultural land. In order to buttress his contention that the land is actually an agricultural land, the petitioner had applied for the trace map at the Settlement Department. Once he received the trace map, the petitioner wanted to bring the said map on record. For, the trace map would certainly throw light on the controversy involved. Hence, the learned Judge was not justified in dismissing the application. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. 3 According to the impugned order, the trace map which the petitioners wanted to bring on record relates to the year 1925, whereas according to the Settlement Department, the land was acquired for the purpose of the Forest Department in the year 1962. Therefore, obviously a trace map of the year 1925 cannot possibly through any light on the controversy involved. Even the photographs which the petitioners wanted to produce before the Court do not reveal whether the land is a forest land or is an agricultural one. Hence, these photographs are not germane to the controversy involved. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the learned was certainly justified in dismissing the said application. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-