CRP 223/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, who have challenged the order, dated 11.05.2010, passed by the learned Munsiff N o. 2, Karimganj, whereby the defendants-petitioners prayer for calling for recor ds of the suit, for the purpose of proving, by adducing evidence, certain docume nts lying therein, has been rejected. One of the prominent reasons for not allowing the defendants-petitioners ’ prayer to call for the records of the suit, which the defendant-petitioners ha d sought to get called for by the Court, was, as submitted on behalf of the defe ndants-petitioners, that the defendants had not mentioned, in their said petitio n, as to who were the parties to the earlier suit and as to what was the subject -matter of the earlier suit. In short, the defendants-petitioners completely fa iled to make out any case for calling for the records of the said suit for the p urpose of bringing on record certain papers/documents by adducing evidence. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants-peti tioners, this Court is of the view that the reasons, assigned by the learned Cou rt below for rejecting the defendants-petitioners’ said prayer, are sufficient a nd justified. However, it is, now, submitted, on behalf of the defendants-petitioners, that the defendants-petitioners seek to file another petition in the Court belo w giving complete details of the documents, which are required to be called for, and the relevance thereof, that the defendants-petitioners would also meet all the requirements of law for the purpose of making such a petition, and that with liberty to the defendants-petitioners to do so, the present petition may be dis posed of. As far as the question of granting liberty is concerned, there is, stric tly speaking, no necessity to grant any leave for the purposes indicated above i nasmuch as the defendants-petitioners can, otherwise also, file such a petition as has been sought for on their behalf. However, whether such a petition would or would not be allowed by the Court, in the fact situation of a given case, is, essentially, for the Court to decide, where such a petition is filed, particula rly, when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to an order refusing to ca ll for a record. In view of the above, this revision petition is disposed of making it cl ear that the defendants-petitioners may file requisite petition, as sought for b y them, and, if such a petition is filed, the learned Court below shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.