IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14081 of 2011 Akhileshwar Prasad Singh Versus Sanjay Kumar Singh ---------------------------------- O R D E R 00. 13.10.2011. I have heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Prakash Srivastava on behalf of the respondent. (2) This writ application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 28.06.2011 passed by Sub Judge Xth, Patna in money suit No.41 of 2000 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application dated 23.05.2011 filed by the petitioner praying for to call for a report from Bank. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that photocopies of drafts have been filed with the lists and documents but inadvertenantly no report from the concerning bank could be called for, therefore, the application was filed for calling for the report but the learned Court below rejected the said application and thereby refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law. (4) On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondent submitted that in fact the case of the plaintiff is that he gave money in cash and drafts to the defendant. It was not the case of the plaintiff that bank drafts were deposited by the plaintiff on - 2 - behalf of the defendant which was encashed by the Mining Department. Considering these aspects of the matter, the learned Court below rejected the prayer of the plaintiff. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff is not seeking to produce any documents from the custody of the bank but he is praying to call for a report and, therefore, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the prayer because the Court can not collect the evidence for a party. (5) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below considered the case of the plaintiff that at paragraph 3 of the plaint has clearly stated that plaintiff paid through drafts and challan and cash to the defendants. Therefore, it is not the case of the plaintiff that he deposited money in the bank through bank drafts. Moreover, he is praying for calling for a report from the bank by way of information which is evident from the application which has been annexed as Annexure (1) to the writ application. The information are in the following term that whether draft number such and such has been issued and encashed by Mining Department. In my opinion, this is neither a document which he is seeking to produce in the suit at subsequent stage nor he is praying to call for any document from the bank rather he is praying to call for a report from the bank. From perusal of paragraph 3 of the plaint, which has been supplied by the parties at the time of hearing in admission matter, it appears that the case of the plaintiff is that he paid draft and challan and cash to the - 3 - defendants. Considering these aspects of the matter, the learned Court below by the impugned order refused to call for the report. It may be mentioned here that arguments of the case has substantially been concluded and the learned Court below found that the suit is of the year 2000 and the argument of the defendant has already been concluded and at this stage no such prayer could be entertained. (6) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the learned Court below acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction. Supervisory jurisdiction is exercised by the High Court with a view to keep the subordinate judiciary within the bounds of their authority and to see that the Courts do their duty in legal manner. (7) In view of my above consideration, I do not find it a proper case where the impugned order is to be interfered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 13thday of October, 2011 Sanjeev/.N.A.F.R.