S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14681/2010 Jitendra Kumar Runthala and Anr. Vs. The Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) and ors. Dated : 03.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. SK Singodiya, for the petitioners. *** By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 5th October, 2010 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Pilani, District Jhunjhunu dismissed the application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC with regard to production of a document. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the relevant copy of the mutation register of village Pilani, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu and canvassed that the land bearing Khasra No.748 was allotted in the name of Sitaram in Samvat 1962 for public use and grazing the cows. He further canvassed that the patta of the land also was issued which was in the power and possession of respondent-Sitaram. The production of patta in the Court is essential for the right decision of the case but the learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that earlier also one application to the same effect was filed before the Court which was dismissed and now again the -2- petitioners have filed an application to the same effect just with a view to procrastinate the trial of the suit. 3. Learned counsel further contended that the production of patta is very essential for the just decision of the case. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the impugned order as also relevant material on record, it is noticed that the mutation, of course, is opened in the name of Sitaram and in the relevant copy of mutation register of Pilani it is mentioned that the 'patta' with regard to land bearing Khasra No.744, 748 and 753 was issued in the name of Sitaram, in Samvat 1962 but it is nowhere mentioned that this land was allotted for public use or for constructing any water tank or grazing cows. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioners utterly failed to convince me that the land in question was allotted for the public use to a Charitable Trust. The documents, which are on record, do not suggest that any 'patta' with regard to land bearing Khasra No.748 was allotted to a Charitable Trust for the public use or for constructing water tank or for grazing cows. -3- 5. The writ petition is found to have been filed by the petitioners sans any basis. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC wherein it was observed that the application was being filed with a view to procrastinate the trial of the suit. The impugned order is found to be just and proper and suffers from no infirmity. 6. E-converso, the writ petition is found to be totally baseless and sans merit, hence, the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold which stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg item no.5