S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1760/2010 DATE OF ORDER : March 10, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Mrinmay Bhattmewara, for the petitioners. By the impugned order dated 18.1.2010, the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC for summoning the copies of the income tax returns from the Income Tax Department in an eviction suit filed against the defendant-petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court has erred in observing that the documents, if necessary and found relevant at the time of final arguments of the suit will be summoned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decisions of this Court in Brij Lal & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chandra, 1996 (1) WLC (Raj.) 495; Jai Singh Vs. Jagdish & Anr., DNJ (Raj) 2002 (2) page 838 and Ramesh Chandra & ors. Vs. Additional District Judge & ors., SBCWP No.48\997/2006 decided on 15-9-2009 and submits that the requirements of the provisions of Order 13 Rule 10 CPC were satisfied and to dispel the bonafide necessity of the landlord, he wants to prove the fact from the income tax returns of Manish, for whose necessity the eviction was sought has been settled out-side. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the impugned order, this court is satisfied that in exercising discretion of the trial court, the trial court has chosen not to summon these documents at this stage, the same cannot be faulted. It is for the defendant to lead his evidence in this regard and it is not necessary that the income tax returns of the son of the landlord or landlord himself be summoned. No interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the trial court. (DR. VINEET KOTHARI)J. ITEM NO. 2 MCS