IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 1699 of 2010 M/s Vikas Traders Kicha …..Petitioner. Versus M/s Rathore Pooja Products …..Respondent. Present : Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.9.2010 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (S/D) Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The said order has been passed by the court below rejecting the application moved under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC. The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:- According to the petitioner he had entered into an agreement with the firm/respondent no.1 for being a super stockist/distributor for the goods manufactured by respondent no.1. The case of the petitioner is that in order to enter into an agreement and to procure the dealership/distributorship he deposited with respondent no.1/firm two signed blank cheques bearing nos. 0571913 and 0579114 of Nainital Bank Ltd. Kicha. Subsequently, some differences arose between the petitioner and respondent no.1 and consequently a complaint was filed by respondent no.1 against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the ACJM, Kannauj (which is now in Uttar Pradesh). These proceedings were challenged by the petitioner in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by means of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is still pending in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in which by an interim order the proceedings against the petitioner before the court of ACJM, Kannauj have been stayed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents not to use the aforesaid cheques. This suit was filed way back in the year 2004 bearing O.S. No. 57 of 2 2004 before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udham Singh Nagar. Now after 6 years when the entire prosecution witnesses have been examined and defence witnesses have also given their examination in chief, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC praying for an order to get the two cheques, allegedly signed by him though not filed by him, which are with the ACJM, Kannauj in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 initiated by respondent no.1. Order 13 Rule 10 CPC reads as follows :- “10. Court may send for papers from its own records or from other Courts.- (1) The Court may of its own motion, and may in its discretion upon the application of any of the parties to a suit, send for, either from its own records or from any other Court, the record of any other suit or proceeding, and inspect the same. (2) Every application made under this rule shall (unless the Court otherwise directs) be supported by an affidavit showing how the record is material to the suit in which the application is made, and that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or so such portion thereof as the applicant requires, or that the production of the original necessary for the purpose of justice. (3) Nothing contained in this rule shall be deemed to enable the Court to use in evidence any document which under the law of evidence would be inadmissible in the suit.” Although it is not a very frequently utilised provision of CPC but definitely in a just situation, and in order to reach a just decision, the Courts have powers to summon the document which is also a material evidence before the another Court. However, the court below for the reasons stated in its order did not find strength in the application of the plaintiff/petitioner and has rejected the same on the ground that a certified photo copy of the said cheques can be filed which can be looked into by the court and there is no necessity to summon the record. This Court finds no anomaly in the said order of the court below. Moreover in such matter, it is entirely a discretion of the court and it is not necessary for this Court to enter into these matters. Definitely, the application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC has been moved by the 3 petitioner after six years of the filing of the suit in order to dilate proceedings of the suit. Moreover, the reasons assigned by the court below for rejecting the application seem to be plausible and no interference is called for by this Court. It is however left open for the court below if the court in its own motion feels at any stage that the certified photocopy of the cheques will not serve the purpose for which they have been filed and if it feels it necessary, it can always requisition the said cheques from the court of ACJM, Kannauj in order to reach a just decision. It is clarified that repeated application under Order 13 Rule 10 for summoning the same document cannot be filed. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 29.9.2010 Kuldeep