1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9164/2007 (Bhupendra Singh Versus Jai Dayal & Others) Date of Order :: 27th August, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Manish Gupta,Counsel for the petitioner(s) Shri Banwari Sharma, Counsel for the respondent (s) BY THE COURT: At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for possession in respect of land-in-dispute. In the said suit both the parties have led their evidence and case was fixed for final arguments. During the pendency of the case, the defendant-petitioner moved an application in the trial court on 13th August, 2007 that a clerk of Custodian Department - Urban Improvement Trust be summoned along-with relevant record. The application was contested by plaintiffs. The trial court vide its order dated 24th September, 2007 rejected the application observing that matter is pending 2 since 2001; the defendant has already examined six witnesses; the evidence was closed by defendant himself and further that defendant has not mentioned specifically as to which record he wants to summon and which employee is required to be examined to prove it. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant has preferred the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that file of Custodian Department has already been summoned by the court and the same is lying in the court. A lease deed / patta was issued to plaintiffs by Custodian Department. He contended that the relevant record of the lease deed along-with lease deed itself are necessary to be exhibited in the case by summoning the person concerned from the Custodian Department, however, the learned trial court wrongly rejected the application, therefore, the impugned order be set-aside and application be allowed. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial court has rightly rejected the application as petitioner did not mention in his application as to which document he wants to get summoned and which employee is required to be examined to prove 3 it. However, he fairly and frankly contended that in case petitioner wants lease deed / patta to be exhibited, then the same may be exhibited and he will have no objection as the same is public document and it is admissible in evidence, but so far as other prayer regarding other relevant record is concerned, the same cannot be summoned as no specific details have been given by the petitioner. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court in the impugned order dated 24th September, 2007. There is no dispute that matter is pending since 2001; the defendant-petitioner has already examined six witnesses; the defendant himself closed his evidence, however, in view of the fact that the file of Custodian Department, U.I.T. has been summoned and the same is lying in the court, the patta / lease deed being a public document and is admissible evidence can be allowed to be exhibited in the facts and circumstances of the present case. So far as other documents are concerned, the learned trial court is justified that no specific details have been given, therefore, the same cannot be allowed. 4 Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 24th September, 2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar is modified and it is directed that lease deed / patta available in the file of Custodian Department may be exhibited as court exhibit and the same will be read in evidence. The parties are directed to bear their own cost. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK/