CW – 5723/09-Abdul Rashid & Anr. Vs. Safi Mohammed. Judgment dt.3.7.09 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5723/2009 Abdul Rashid & Anr. Vs. Safi Mohammed. Date of order : 3rd July, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Sajjan Singh for the petitioner. ------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.7.2008 whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. and allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. and summoned the record of FIR No.51/2007 from the Police Station Mahila Thana from the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that summoning of record is not in consonance with the provisions of Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. and it would delay the trial of the criminal case pending in the said Court from where these documents have been summoned. 4. Having heard learned counsel and upon perusal of the CW – 5723/09-Abdul Rashid & Anr. Vs. Safi Mohammed. Judgment dt.3.7.09 2/3 provisions of Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. The very purpose of Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. is to permit the trial Court to inspect the relevant documents which may be summoned by it either from its own record or from any other court on its own motion or on an application of party to the suit and such application showing the relevance of the document to be so summoned has to be supported by an affidavit of the party concerned and the Court should also form an opinion that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires, therefore as an alternative, instead of directing the party to obtain a certified copy of the relevant document, the trial Court is permitted to summon such records for its own inspection in its own discretion. Sub-Rule 3 of Order 13 Rule 10 takes care and provides that nothing contained in this rule shall be deemed to enable the Court to use in evidence any document of such summoned record which under the law of evidence would be inadmissible in the suit. No such situation has arisen in the present matter. If the Court in its discretion has found that the inspection and perusal of these relevant documents CW – 5723/09-Abdul Rashid & Anr. Vs. Safi Mohammed. Judgment dt.3.7.09 3/3 in criminal proceedings is necessary in the present suit then this exercise of discretion cannot be held unjustified in the present matter. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this judgment be sent to opposite parties as well as trial court. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.15 babulal/