1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5383 OF 2008. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10046 OF 2008. Fakira s/o Tukaram Turerao and another. .... PETITIONERS. VERSUS Jagatnarayansingh s/o Rajkaransingh. .... RESPONDENT. ... Shri H.T. Joshi, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri P.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate holding for Shri P.K. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. RESERVED ON : 24.08.2009. PRONOUNCED ON: 28.08.2009. PER COURT: 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the CJSD, Aurangabad in Special Civil Suit No.259 of 2001 on 5.7.2008 by which the prayer of the petitioner for framing additional issues is rejected and also the order 2 dated 28th January, 2008 passed in an application in Special Civil Suit No.259 of 2001 by the trial Court by which the application dated 9th March, 2005 praying therein for calling certain documents from the Home Department and Record of R.C.S. No.430 of 2000 has been rejected. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the said documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the pending suit. The learned Counsel further submitted that to resolve real controversy involved in the said civil suit, the documents as described in the application and record of R.C.C. No.430 of 2000 are necessary. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted that Rulen1( 2) of Order VIII of C.P.C. Provides that where a party relies on any other documents as evidence in support of his offence or claim for set-off, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the written statement, or where there is no written statement, to be presented at the first hearing. 3 If no such list is so annexed or presented the defendant shall be allowed a further period of ten days to file this list of documents. The learned Counsel, therefore, relying on Rule 1 and 2 of Order VIII submits that the impugned order without recording sufficient reasons for rejection of application, is not sustainable. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that the documents as described in the application should have been summoned by the trial Court for proper adjudication of the pending proceedings. 3. So far prayer for framing additional issues is concerned, the learned Counsel for petitioners fairly submitted that he is not pressing the said prayer and only prayer that the entire file along with all record from the Home Department, Mantralaya, Maharashtra State, Mumbai bearing File No.PCR.3094/A’bad/750/Visha-6 and File of R.C.C. No.430 of 2000 are required for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the main suit. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent 4 submitted that the criminal prosecution is terminated as back as in the year, 2000. The said order is not challenged by the present petitioners. The application filed by the petitioners was at belated stage and, therefore, the trial Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for calling record or for framing additional issues. The learned Counsel further submitted that when the impugned order was passed the plaintiff was already examined. Therefore, the trial Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for calling the record as prayed by the petitioners. He further submitted that the documents being public documents, the petitioner can obtain said documents and produce the same on record. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the provisions 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act and submitted that public document can be obtained directly from the authorities. Therefore, the learned Counsel relying on the averments in affidavit-in-reply, vehemently submitted that this writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent. So far as prayer of the petitioners for framing additional issues is concerned, it is given up by the Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments. Therefore, the said order needs no interference. So far as the prayer of the petitioners to call for the documents and file from the concerned Department or from the Court is concerned, perusal of the impugned order dated 28th January, 2008 reveals that the learned Judge has only mentioned that `RCC No.430/2000 and the File with Home Department is public record. Defendant can obtain the copies and entitled to file it on record.’ On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the order passed by the trial Judge is cryptic. It does not appear from the impugned order that the Judge has properly appreciated the contentions raised by the petitioners. Merely mentioning in the order that RCC No.430/2000 and file with the Home Department are public record and rejecting the application 6 merely on the said ground is short of cogent and convincing reasons. 6. Hence, the impugned order dated 28th January, 2008 passed on application dated 19.3.2005 Exh.49 in Special Civil Suit No.259 of 2001 is set aside. The said application Exh.49 is restored to its original position for fresh hearing. The concerned Court to hear and decide the said application by giving sufficient hearing to the learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent and pass an appropriate order giving cogent and sufficient reasons, within a period of two months from today. The writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Civil Application No.10046 of 2008 is disposed of in view of disposal of main writ petition. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/#