1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1128/2007 {Vikas Sharma Versus Additional District & Session Judge & Others} Date of Order :: 27th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal for the petitioner Mr. Banwari Sharma for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Banwari Sharma appears for the contesting respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the trial court and during the pendency of that suit, he moved an application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC with a prayer to summon the file relating to pension in favour of Smt. Manju Sharma-respondent no. 7, wife of late Shri Chhote Lal. The trial court rejected the application vide order dated 26.9.2006. Thereafter an application was moved by the plaintiff to review the said order but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2006. The aforesaid both the orders have been challenged in this writ petition preferred on 2 behalf of the plaintiff. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his only limited prayer in the application was to summon the pension file relating to Chhote Lal as he does not know what are the exact documents relating to pension, therefore, no prejudice will be caused in case the application is allowed by setting-aside the impugned order passed by the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that all the relevant documents, on the basis of which the pension has been released in favour of Smt. Manju Sharma are already available on record. The said documents were referred while deciding the application for temporary injunction also. He also contended that trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC. The trial court in its impugned order dated 26th September, 2006 has observed that defendants no. 1 to 5 in their written statement have stated that defendant no. 6 is 3 wife of Chhote Lal and only on the basis of the aforesaid statement, there is no justification to summon the entire file of pension. The petitioner has not referred any particular document which is said to be necessary for proper adjudication of the case. The file cannot be summoned only for the purpose of inspection of the plaintiff. The reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application and also the review petition appear to be justified in the eye of law and I do not find any ground to interfere in the said orders under Article 227 of the Constitution. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK