1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3683 OF 2009. ( Shantabai through L.Rs. And others -: versus :- MSEB and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 11, 2009. Heard Shri R.S. Parsodkar with Shri P.A. Abhyankar, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri G.E. Moharir, learned counsel for respondents. The petitioners have filed application under section 16[3] of the Indian Telegraph Act for compensation in relation to trees. To prove the fact that there was Forest, petitioners wanted to rely upon certain government records. They made some efforts to obtain certified copy, but could not succeed and hence they moved application at Exh.18 under Order 16 Rule 1 [2][3] of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning witnesses. By the impugned order dated 15.04.2009, the 10th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur has rejected that application. Learned counsel for petitioner argues that the Court below has not properly appreciated the grievance made. He points out that there was earlier application and 2 an earlier order and hence application at Exh.18 was made in that background and should have appreciated in that background. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 4 supports the impugned order. They state that the application at Exh.18 should have been self-sufficient and necessary details ought to have been furnished on record. I have perused the impugned orders as also the records. It is clear that the petitioners had approached the Court for recovery of compensation and they were trying to show correct valuation of trees, for that purpose they needed some records. It also appears that they tried to obtain certified copy, but could not get it and having realized that it was not possible for them to obtain certified copy of the entire record, they attempted to summon entire record before the Trial Court for verification. The court below has taken a technical view of the matter. Though the view cannot be said to be incorrect, the court should have seen that, it is sitting in welfare jurisdiction and therefore, even if it found application little vague, it should have asked petitioners to give necessary particulars thereof to enable it to summon documents. The petitioners are therefore permitted to place appropriate application with relevant details on record of the 10th Additional Adhoc District Judge, Nagpur and the learned Trial Court to issue witness summons to the persons / officer named by the petitioners to produce that record before it. After the records are so produced, the trial Court to permit parties before it to obtain copies of the relevant pages/extracts therefrom and to proceed further to 3 record evidence. The impugned order dated 15.04.2009 is thus set aside only for said purpose. If such application is moved by 25.11.2009, the Court below shall decide said application as early as possible and in any case by 15.12.2009. As the matter is of the year 1992, Court below to attempt to decide the same finally as early as possible. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.