CRP 453/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI This application made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India puts to cha llenge the order, dated 25.11.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamr up, Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No.240/2009, arising out of Title Suit No.171/20 06, whereby the learned Civil Judge has rejected the defendant-petitioners’ peti tion, made under Order XIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil P rocedure, seeking to bring on record two sale deeds, as documents, for considera tion in their favour. 2. I have heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel, for the defendant -petitioners, and Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel, for the plaintiff-opposite party. 3. While considering this application, it needs to be noted that in the pre sent case, the defendant-petitioners filed a petition under Order XIII Rule 10, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a prayer to consider the certified copies of the two sale deeds bearing No.7461 and 7462/1983, both d ated 30.09.1983. 4. It needs to be borne in mind that Order XIII Rule 10 empowers a Court to send for, on its own motion or upon application made by any of the parties to t he suit, the record of any other suit or proceeding and inspect the same. There was, admittedly, no prayer made in the petition, in the present case, calling fo r the records to prove the said two sale deeds. This apart, evidence was already closed and the suit had been pending for arguments to be addressed on behalf of the parties. The said two sale deeds were not part of the evidence and there wa s no foundation, in the pleadings of the defendants, for introducing the said tw o deeds. In the face of these facts and, particularly, when there was no prayer for calling of the records to prove the said two documents, mere filing of the s aid two documents for the purpose of consideration by the Court could not have b een allowed. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, w hereby the learned Court below has rejected the said petition. 5. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this Court does not f ind any merit in this revision. The revision is, therefore, not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 6. With the above observations and directions, this revision stands dispose d of. 7. No order as to costs.