Civil Revision No.5479 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.5479 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9.9.2011 Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition depicts malady of errors. The petitioner had applied for providing copy of various documents, which were part of the Court file in case arising out of FIR No. 214 of 2008, registered at Police Station Pataudi, under Sections 279, 337C and 304- A IPC and another case pertaining to Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon, registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner had placed reliance upon Rule 21 of Punjab Civil and Criminal Courts Preparation and Supply of Copies of Records Rules, 1965. According to the counsel, a copy of copy can be provided without having proof of its authenticity. For non-supply of these documents, the petitioner had filed Civil writ Petition which has been treated as a Civil Revision by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated Civil Revision No.5479 of 2011 2 5.9.2011. A grievance has been made by the petitioner that on 28.2.2011, the District & Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, has passed a one word order “Declined”. At the outset, this Court has already observed that this case is a malady of errors for the following reasons:- 1) Remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Criminal Court for non-issuance of documents arising out of the criminal cases; 2) The petitioner has filed a writ petition which has been treated as a Civil Revision; 3) The District & Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, without giving any reason, has declined the application with one word “Declined”. Be that as it may, not to complicate the matter, the present petition is disposed of by directing the District & Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, to pass a well reasoned order on the application as to why the documents, as prayed for, cannot be provided to the petitioner under the Rule relied upon by him. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 9, 2011 “DK”