IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.600 of 2009 Kailashi Devi @ Kailashi Devi Kezriwal, wife of late Satya Narain Kezriwal, resident of Mohalla- Gullowara, near Atma Ram Poddar Shop, P.O.- Lal Bagh, P.S. Sadar, District- Darbhanga. ….Opp. Party…judgment debtor…Petitioner. Versus Sudhir Kumar Gami, son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Gami, resident of Mohalla- Hospital Road, Banta, P.O. – D.M.C. Campus, P.S. Laheriasarai, Sub-Division- Sadar, District- Darbhanga. ….Petitioner…Decree-holder…Opp.Party. ----------- 03- 25.11.2011 Heard Mr. Gopal Jee for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the opposite party, although he has entered appearance by filing duly executed Vakalatnama. The tenant-judgment debtor of Money Execution Case No.4 of 2004, has preferred this civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 21.3.2009, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st court, Darbhanga, whereby his application dated 7.3.2009 (Annexure-2), praying therein that the original records of House Control Appeal No.9 of 1995-96 (Smt. Kailashi Devi Vs. Sudhir Kumar Gami), may be called for verification of the cases of the parties, has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rent control case was preferred by the landlord for realization of arrears of rent and current rent. The same was allowed leading to the aforesaid Money Execution case 2 No.4 of 2004, wherein the present petitioner took the stand that he has deposited the entire money claim of the decree- holder in the court of learned Collector. This position has been disputed by the landlord who took the stand that he has not received the rent. In that view of the matter, the judgment-debtor filed the aforesaid application dated 7.3.2009 (Annexure-2), that the original records of House Control Appeal No.9 of 1995-96, may be called for from the court of the learned Collector of Darbhanga for verification of the stand taken by the parties, and has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. It appears to us that the learned Execution Court has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The learned Execution Court is hereby directed to call for the records of House Control Appeal No.9 of 1995-96, and thereafter may proceed in accordance with law. 4. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed, and the impugned order dated 21.3.2009, passed in Execution Case No.4 of 2004, is hereby set aside. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/