1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS. 150, 161 AND 163 OF 2008 Mrs. Khanbibi Laljee ... Petitioner versus Mrs. Manisha Gowda ... Respondent Mr. J. Vaz, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 14TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.:- Heard Mr. J. Vaz, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. Challenge in these petitions is to the common Order dated 15-1-2008 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division 'B' Court, Panaji. The Petitioner is Plaintiff in the Civil Suits filed by him. It appears that three cheques issued to the Petitioner were also the subject matter of C. C. No. 206/98/C pending before the learned J.M.F.C. 'C' Court, Panaji. The Petitioner by his application dated 13-12-2007, purported to have been filed under Order 13, Rule 10, C.P.C, sought to call for the records of the said Criminal case No.206/98/C with the said cheques bearing Nos. 288712, 215182 and 215187, which application came to be disposed of by the impugned Order. 2 The said application dated 13-12-2007 came to be dismissed on two counts. First, because the Petitioner had moved a similar application on 16-6-2007 and which was dismissed on 31-7-2007. Second, because the Petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Order 13, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. It is not necessary to find out, for the purpose of this petition, whether a similar application was disposed of by the Court by Order dated 31-7- 2007. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in terms of Order 13, Rule 10, C.P.C., the Petitioner was required to support such an application by an affidavit showing how the record was material to the suit, in which the application was made and also that the Petitioner could not without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or any portion as required or that the production of the original was necessary for the purpose of justice. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10, Order 13, C.P.C. provides that 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. Sub-Rule(2) further provides that 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 of such portion thereof as the applicant requires, or that the production of the original is necessary for the purposes of justice. 3 Admittedly, the Criminal Case No. 206/908/C was pending at the same station where the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division was situated and certainly it was not the case of the Petitioner that he was unable to obtain a duly authenticated copy of the said cheques filed in the said Criminal Case, so that he could produce the same to support his case in the said Civil Suit, that being one of requirements to invoke the provision of Sub-Rule(2). The Petitioner was always free to do so. In my view, the impugned Order could not be faulted. The Petitioner is always at liberty to obtain an authenticated copy of the said cheques so as to enable him to produce the same in the said Civil Suits. With the above observations, the petitions are dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD